linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ftrace/x86: fix x86-32 triple fault with graph tracing and suspend-to-ram

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3586585.nrmPruLJgf@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:47:36 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace/x86: fix x86-32 triple fault with graph tracing and suspend-to-ram

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 04:42:18 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:12:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:55:46 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:39:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:45 +0200
> > > > Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > With both patches applied `./analyze_suspend.py -config 
> > > > > suspend-callgraph.cfg -filter i915` succeeds on a Lenovo X60t, so 
> > > > > suspend and resume work perfectly, when tracing is enabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tested-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
> > > > > 
> > > > > It’d be awesome, if you could tag both patches for inclusion into the 
> > > > > stable Linux Kernel series.
> > > > 
> > > > As long as they are not dependent on my patch series, I'm fine with
> > > > these going to stable.
> > > 
> > > Stable sounds fine to me too.  Both patches are independent of your
> > > x86-32 fentry patch set.
> > 
> > Does https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9628301/ need to go into any particular
> > -stable series or just all of them?
> > 
> > Or should a Fixes: tag be added to it?
> 
> As far as I can tell this issue has been around since the function_graph
> tracer was introduced in 2008:
> 
>   15e6cb3673ea ("tracing: add a tracer to catch execution time of kernel functions")
> 
> (Though only for gcc >= 4.4.)
> 
> Not sure if it's overkill to specify 'Fixes' for an 8+ year old bug?  I
> guess it can't hurt anything.
> 
> I think it can go in all of the stable branches.

OK, thanks!