linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL de-alpha] Make core code not need to know about Alpha for v4.15

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: <20171025090443.g6aahmn3ggu6vcon@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:04:43 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, snitzer@...hat.com,
        thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL de-alpha] Make core code not need to know about Alpha
 for v4.15


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:45:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello, Ingo,
> > > 
> > > This series is a first step towards making the core kernel no longer
> > > need to consider DEC Alpha as a special case.  This is accomplished
> > > by two sets of patches, followed by a Coccinelle script:
> > > 
> > > 1.	Patches 1/19 through 15/19 in the following patches, which
> > > 	change non-Coccinelle-susceptible instances of ACCESS_ONCE()
> > > 	to either READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE(), as appropriate.	Most of
> > > 	these patches are courtesy of Mark Rutland.
> > > 
> > > 2.	Patches 16/19 through 18/19 in the following patches, which
> > > 	add smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE() and to Alpha's
> > > 	value-returning _release and _relaxed atomic read-modify-write
> > > 	operations, while also removing lockless_dereference() in favor
> > > 	of the modified READ_ONCE().
> > > 
> > > 3.	A patch generated by Coccinelle (script in commit log) that
> > > 	converts ACCESS_ONCE() to either READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE(),
> > > 	as appropriate.  Of course, this patch should not be applied
> > > 	as-is to mainline, instead, the Coccinelle script should be
> > > 	re-run in order to account for any changes between now and
> > > 	the time of merging into mainline.
> > > 
> > > A later series (most likely targeted to v4.16) will remove instances of
> > > smp_read_barrier_depends() that are made redundant by this series, that
> > > is to say, almost all of them.
> > > 
> > > These changes are available in the git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/alpha-cocci
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to d19fa5187a69bd7685e9c7452ce9e339b1b079fc:
> > > 
> > >   COCCINELLE: treewide: kill off ACCESS_ONCE() (2017-10-21 12:52:09 -0700)
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Mark Rutland (14):
> > >       dm integrity: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       EDAC, altera: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       firmware/ivc: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       fs: dcache: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       fs: ncpfs: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       media: dvb_ringbuffer: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       net: netlink/netfilter: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       net/ipv4/tcp_input.c: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       net: average: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       samples: mic/mpssd/mpssd.c: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       selftests/powerpc: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       workqueue: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > >       rcutorture: formal: Prepare for ACCESS_ONCE() removal
> > >       COCCINELLE: treewide: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > 
> > None of the patches from Mark include your Signed-off-by - I'll add them, let me 
> > know if that's not OK. I suppose this happened because you rebased his tree?
> 
> I did pull his tree rather than applying from email, [...]

You might have pulled it, but the commits in rcu/alpha-cocci suggest that the tree 
was also rebased:

 commit d19fa5187a69bd7685e9c7452ce9e339b1b079fc
 Author:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
 AuthorDate: Thu Oct 19 10:42:03 2017 -0700
 Commit:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
 CommitDate: Sat Oct 21 12:52:09 2017 -0700

    COCCINELLE: treewide: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

Note the "Commit:" field which says the commit was created by you, not by Mark.

Thanks,

	Ingo