linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Introduce CROSSRELEASE_STACK

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: <20171019063610.GD3310@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:36:11 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel-team@....com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Introduce CROSSRELEASE_STACK_TRACE and make
 it not unwind as default

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 08:22:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> There's no current crash regression that I know of - I'm just outlining the 
> conditions of getting all this re-enabled in the next merge window.
> 
> Instead of sending two series, could you please send a series that includes both 
> these fixing + re-enabling patches, plus the false positive fixes?
> 
> In particular I think the cross-release re-enabling should be done as the last 
> patch, so that any future bisections of new false positives won't be made more 
> difficult by re-introducing the old false positives near the end of the bisection.

I agree. But I already sent v2 before you told me..

Do you want me to send patches fixing false positives in the thread
fixing performance regression?