linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/21] liblockdep fixes for v4.12

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]

Date:   Fri, 26 May 2017 11:41:43 +0000
From:   "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ben@...adent.org.uk" <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
        "a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] liblockdep fixes for v4.12

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:21:51PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) <alexander.levin@...izon.com> wrote:
> 
> > Right, and as you can see from this patchset where we added to
> > tools/include/ when needed and removed from lib/lockdep/uinclude,
> > liblockdep is slowly creeping the "right" way.
> > 
> > perf, like liblockdep, didn't finish the switch to exclusively use
> > tools/include/ yet.
> > 
> > I can put more work into getting it done over the next few releases,
> > but it's not something I see as a critical fix for the upcoming
> > release.
> 
> Since liblockdep was broken for an extended period of time I'd really
> like to see this fixed before I apply any more patches.

What does the build breakage has to do with converting the way we
use headers? There's no broken functionality as far as I can tell,
so why is the header thing defined as a "fix" to begin with?

I also don't see a single tools/ project to exclusively use tools/include
at this point.

Would you rather keep liblockdep broken for the next couple of months
until this is sorted? I really doubt I could get something (+ enough
time to soak in -next) for v4.13, so we're looking at v4.14 at the
earliest.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha