linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

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:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> [I may regret adding the rseq tree ...]
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rseq tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   9da78ba6b47b ("x86/entry/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label")
>   26c4ef9c49d8 ("x86/entry/64: Split the IRET-to-user and IRET-to-kernel paths")
>   e53178328c9b ("x86/entry/64: Shrink paranoid_exit_restore and make labels local")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   60a77bfd24d5 ("membarrier: x86: Provide core serializing command (v2)")
> 
> from the rseq tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

NAK!

There's absolutely no way such invasive x86 changes should be done outside the x86 
tree and be merged into linux-next.

linux-next should be for the regular maintenance flow, for changes pushed by 
maintainers and part of the regular maintenance process - not for work-in-progress 
features that may or may not be merged upstream in that form ...

Thanks,

	Ingo