linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

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:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:13:41 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   d7713e8f8b23 ("membarrier: Expedited private command")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the comment and the load_cr3(), so I
> just dropped the commend change in the latter) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

Thank you, Stephen!

Mathieu, Peter, our commit log reads as if removal of load_cr3() would
simply result in relying on the ordering provided by the atomic ops
in switch_mm() for mm_cpumask(), so that only the commit log and the
comment need changing.

Please let me know if I am missing something here.

							Thanx, Paul