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

Message-ID: <20170804195024.GC3477@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:50:24 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10] pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:48:39PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> 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).

I'm going to take the other 3 as well for 3.18, 4.4, and 4.9.

thanks,

greg k-h