linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] once: switch to new jump label API

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: <59DBE6C2.40104@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:14:42 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] once: switch to new jump label API

On 10/09/2017 10:27 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 09:07:51PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:44:41PM -0400, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> writes:
>>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Switch the DO_ONCE() macro from the deprecated jump label API to the new
>>>> one.  The new one is more readable, and for DO_ONCE() it also makes the
>>>> generated code more icache-friendly: now the one-time initialization
>>>> code is placed out-of-line at the jump target, rather than at the inline
>>>> fallthrough case.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> Great!  Who though is the maintainer for this code?  It seems it was originally
>> taken by David Miller through the networking tree.  David, are you taking
>> further patches to the "once" functions, or should I be trying to get this into
>> -mm, or somewhere else?
>>
>> Eric
>
> Ping.

Given original code was accepted against net-next tree as major users of
the api are networking related anyway, it should be fine here as well to
route through this tree. Maybe resend the patch with a [PATCH net-next]
in the subject line (as usually done) to make the targeted tree more clear.