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: <20180508160257.6e19707ccf1dabe5ec9e8847@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 16:02:57 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, "Steven J . Hill" <steven.hill@...ium.com>,
        Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST] Revert mm/vmstat.c: fix vmstat_update()
 preemption BUG

On Mon, 7 May 2018 09:31:05 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> In any case I agree that the revert should be done immediately even
> before fixing the underlying bug. The preempt_disable/enable doesn't
> prevent the bug, it only prevents the debugging code from actually
> reporting it! Note that it's debugging code (CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT) that
> production kernels most likely don't have enabled, so we are not even
> helping them not crash (while allowing possible data corruption).

Grumble.

I don't see much benefit in emitting warnings into end-users' logs for
bugs which we already know about.

The only thing this buys us is that people will hassle us if we forget
to fix the bug, and how pathetic is that?  I mean, we may as well put

	printk("don't forget to fix the vmstat_update() bug!\n");

into start_kernel().

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ