linux-kernel - Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160217030130.GA31903@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:01:30 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:00:08AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:41:39PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:11:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> > > > > > > > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I
> > > > > > > > suppose backporting them isn't a problem.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What do you think about the way to solve this oops problem? Could you just
> > > > > > > give your opinion of the way? Or ack or nack about this backporting?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Or would it be better to create a new simple patch with which we can solve
> > > > > > the oops problem, because your patch is too complicated to backport to
> > > > > > stable tree? What do you think about that?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would prefer just backporting existing stuff, we know that works.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A separate patch for stable doesn't make sense to me; you get extra
> > > > > chances for fail and a divergent code-base.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree, I REALLY don't want to take patches that are not
> > > > identical-as-much-as-possible to what is in Linus's tree, because almost
> > > > every time we do, the patch is broken in some way.
> > > 
> > > I also agree and got it. Then could you check if this backporting is done
> > > properly?
> > 
> > What backporting of what to where by whom?
> > 
> > Come on, someone needs to actually send in some patches, in the correct
> > format, before anyone can do anything with them...
> 
> I am sorry for not ccing you when I sent the patches at first. (I didn't
> know I should do it.) There are the patches in this thread. Refer to,
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/5/60

Ok, that's in my "to review" queue, along with 500+ other patches.  I'll
get to them eventually :)

thanks,

greg k-h