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  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:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:41:17 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:30:06 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that it only fixed a critical bug, but didn't go far
> > enough to keep the bug fix from breaking API.  
> 
> An API breakage that gets noticed *is* a crtitical bug.

I totally agree with you. You misunderstood what I wrote.

I said there were two bugs here. The first bug was a possible accessing
bad memory bug. That needed to be fixed. The problem was by fixing
that, it broke API. But that's because the original code was broken
where it relied on broken code to get right. I never said the second
bug fix should not have been backported. I even said that the first bug
"didn't go far enough".

I hope the answer was not to revert the bug and put back the possible
bad memory access in to keep API. But it was to backport the second bug
fix that still has the first fix, but fixes the API breakage.

Yes, an API breakage is something I would label as critical to be
backported.

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists