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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:38:16 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <>,
        Pavel Machek <>, Petr Mladek <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Mel Gorman <>, Michal Hocko <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Byungchul Park <>,
        Tejun Heo <>, Greg KH <>
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 12:28:21 -0700
Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
> >
> > Right, but the fix to the API was also trivial. I don't understand why
> > you are arguing with me. I agree with you. I'm talking about this
> > specific instance. Where a bug was fixed, and the API breakage was
> > another fix that needed to be backported.  
> Fair enough. Were you there when the report of breakage came in?

No I wasn't.

> Because *my* argument is that reverting something that causes problems
> is simply *never* the wrong answer.
> If you know of the fix, fine. But clearly people DID NOT KNOW. So
> reverting was the right choice.

But I don't see in the git history that this was ever reverted. My reply
saying that "I hope it wasn't reverted", was a response for it being
reverted in stable, not mainline.  Considering that the original bug
would allow userspace to write zeros anywhere in memory, I would have
definitely worked on finding why the API breakage happened and fixing
it properly before putting such a large hole back into the kernel.

I'm assuming that may have been what happened because the commit was
never reverted in your tree, and if I was responsible for that code, I
would be up all night looking for an API fix to make sure the original
fix isn't reverted.

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists