linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10] pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global

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: <20170730154839.GC20859@leoy-ThinkPad-T440>
Date:   Sun, 30 Jul 2017 23:48:39 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10] pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global

Hi Willy,

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > Hi Leo,
> > > 
> > > There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
> > > 
> > >   commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
> > >   Author: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
> > >   Date:   Thu Oct 20 00:34:00 2016 -0700
> > > 
> > >     pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global
> > >     
> > > What worries me is that some later fixes were issued, apparently to fix
> > > an oops and a warning after this patch :
> > 
> > Yes, below two patches I also notices. But at least I have not
> > reproduce them on Android common kernel 4.4. I only faced the hang
> > issue and the first patch just fixes it.
> 
> OK but maybe by breaking something else that the other ones have to
> fix. That's my main concern in fact.

Yeah, I also want to check if we need back port another three extra
patches to long term support kernels.

> > > Also, the information you added to the commit message references a trace
> > > on a 4.4 kernel. Do you confirm that you got the same issue on 3.10 ?
> > 
> > No, I only can confirm this on kernel 4.4. Now only kernel 4.4 are
> > avaliable on the board, and I verified mainline kernel can work well;
> > so this is why I can check difference between them and find the first
> > patch is critical.
> 
> Given that 3.10 only has a few months left, if 3.10 isn't available on
> this hardware, do you really think we need to fix something in it that
> apparently nobody will be in situation to experience, at the risk of
> possibly adding some partial breakage ?
> 
> I'm not opposed, really just asking.

Indeedly I have no requirement for 3.10 kernel; Greg has ported
patch to 3.18/4.4/4.9 kernels, so Greg suggested the patch can be
posted to mailing list for kernel 3.10.

So for 3.10, it's okay for me to ignore this patch backporting; or if
Greg and you think we should backport another 3 patches either is okay
for me. For later case, please let me know if me to follow this (I
can do this after one week later after holiday).

Thanks,
Leo Yan