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: <20180525124300.964a1a15d953e8972625bb0f@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 12:43:00 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: do not break __GFP_THISNODE by zonelist
 reset

On Fri, 25 May 2018 15:08:53 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> we might consider this for 4.17 although I don't know if there's anything
> currently broken. Stable backports should be more important, but will have to
> be reviewed carefully, as the code went through many changes.
> BTW I think that also the ac->preferred_zoneref reset is currently useless if
> we don't also reset ac->nodemask from a mempolicy to NULL first (which we
> probably should for the OOM victims etc?), but I would leave that for a
> separate patch.

Confused.  If nothing is currently broken then why is a backport
needed?  Presumably because we expect breakage in the future?  Can you
expand on this?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ