linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 08/22] Revert "x86: UV: raw

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: <20180906085838.5a4c6708@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:58:38 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...mens.com>,
        tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 08/22] Revert "x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion"

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:38:16 +0200
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 09:35 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-09-05 08:28:02 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:  
> > > 4.14.63-rt41-rc1 stable review patch.
> > > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> > > 
> > > [ Upstream commit 2a9c45d8f89112458364285cbe2b0729561953f1 ]
> > > 
> > > Drop the Ultraviolet patch. UV looks broken upstream for PREEMPT, too.
> > > Mike is the only person I know that has such a thing and he isn't going
> > > to fix this upstream (from 1526977462.6491.1.camel@....de):  
> > 
> > I don't think that we need to propagate that revert for stable. I
> > reverted it in the devel tree because nobody wanted this upstream and I
> > couldn't test it. For that reason I didn't see the point for having it
> > in the RT tree.
> > However, if you want to revert it for stable, be my guest. It probably
> > will have no impact and if it will people might step forward and fix it
> > properly / upstream.  
> 
> I'm in favor of reverting it as useless cruft.  UV has been broken
> forever wrt PREEMPT, and nobody cares.  The original interest in UV RT
> support evaporated while 2.6.33-rt was still current (and when getting
> it working took a bit more than a spinlock conversion). 
> 

Yeah, I skipped other reverts as I didn't think it was stable relevant,
but this one seemed like a good idea to backport. As Mike is in favor,
and Sebastian said "be my guest", I'll keep this in.

-- Steve