linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/29] arm meltdown fix backporting review for lts 4.9

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: <20180313100316.GA1999@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:03:16 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/29] arm meltdown fix backporting review for lts 4.9

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:31:29PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:25:25AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:26:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Really?  Like what?  Last I looked it's only about 300 or so patches.
> > Something like less than .5% of the normal SoC backport size for any ARM
> > system recently.  There were some numbers published a few months ago
> > about the real count, I can dig them up if you are curious.
> 
> Really.  
> 
> The Android tree is making non-trivial modifications adding new features
> in core bits of the kernel like the scheduler - that's got an impact
> which will have follow on validation costs if it's not introduced early
> on in the process.

Ah crap, I forgot all about the scheduler mess.  Sorry about that, I've
been focusing on device-specific stuff too much (nothing I much care
lives outside of drivers/...)

So you are right, for some types of devices, the andoid-common tree
isn't the best idea.  However, the validation "costs" better be starting
all over based on the intrusiveness of these patches, they are
non-trivial :(

thanks,

greg k-h