linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] Re: Module removal-related regression?

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: <20170913133559.0cbeb318@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:35:59 +0200
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bisected] Re: Module removal-related regression?

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:52:11 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:29:26 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:  
> > > 
> > > That is an option, but maybe we could have the patch below for a year or
> > > 2 instead?
> > > 
> > > Jakub, can you try and see if that works for you?  
> > 
> > Unfortunately this doesn't seem to solve it :(
> > 
> > # modprobe nfp; lsmod | grep nfp; modprobe -r nfp; lsmod | grep nfp
> > nfp                  1101824  0 
> > nfp                  1101824  1   
> 
> Well, I should have tested it before sending out. How about this one?

This one is better!  Consider it:

Tested-by: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>

Thanks!