linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4

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, 29 Sep 2017 18:32:04 +0800
From:   Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4

On 09/29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:53:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
>> > > Fixes: f5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang")
>> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>> > 
>> > Side note: it's not like I personally need the credit, but in general
>> > I really want people to pick up on who debugged the code and pointed
>> > to the solution. That's often more of the work than the fix itself.
>> > 
>> > The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too
>> > old to worry about" thing. People who then step up and analyze the
>> > problem are rare as it is. They need to be credited in the commit
>> > logs.
>> > 
>> > We don't have any fixed format for that, but it's pretty free-form. So
>> > we have tags like
>> > 
>> >   Root-caused-by:
>> >   Diagnosed-by:
>> >   Analyzed-by:
>> >   Debugged-by:
>> >   Bisected-by:
>> >   Fix-suggested-by:
>> > 
>> > etc for giving credit to people who figured out some part of a bug
>> > (and, having grepped for this, we also a _shitload_ of miss-spellings
>> > of various things ;)
>> 
>> Indeed, credit is important and I try to give it where it's due.  Sorry
>> for the snub!  I anoint you with:
>> 
>> Debugged-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>
>When applying the fix I went with:
>
>  Diagnosed-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>
>Because I think 'diagnosing' a bug is a higher category, which implies debugging. 
>
>( Sometimes we refer to 'debugging a bug' as the reporter adding printks on 
>  request and printing out key state that helps understand the bug. It does not 
>  necessarily imply root-causing the bug. )
>
>Also note that I added a "Reported-and-Bisected-by:" tag for the ktest robot, to 
>further credit the fact that in addition to reporting a kernel crash, a specific 
>commit was bisected to as well.
>
>I'll wait for another round of ktest robot testing to make sure the crash is 
>indeed fixed.

The panic is gone with the fix patch for 4 times test.

Tested-by: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>

Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo