linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

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:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:20:05 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>>
>> But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression
>> on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do
>> the cleanups / nicer fixes sometime later?
>
> The fix patch was already posted, but in another thread (confusingly
> with _almost_ the same subject: "Re: Linux 4.15-rc2: Regression in
> resume from ACPI S3").
>
> Here:
>
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/fixes
>
> but it hasn't actually gotten to me yet (I think Luto made a new
> version where he split it up into three smaller patches, and I'm
> assuming it's in one of the -tip trees heading for me asap).
>
> All the x86 people have been insanely busy with the crazy page table
> isolation patches, that probably is slowing down things. But I was
> expecting to get the -tip tree pulls tomorrow (.. because.. Friday.
> It's my busiest day of the week because everybody wants to get their
> work out before the weekend).

Nah, it's that I was busy with the stupid PTI stuff, and the original
version of the patch didn't compile on some configurations.  I've
tested the version I just sent for suspend-to-ram and suspend-to-disk
on 32-bit and 64-bit in a couple of configurations.