linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:09:10 +0300
From:   Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 04:47:20PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:07:10PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > You're reading way too much into this. The revert is just a point to
> > start the conversion. I've found that it's the best way to get the
> > attention of the relevant developers. Other kind of regression
> > reports have an unfortunate habit of disappearing into /dev/null.
> 
> That's some strange "logic".
> 
> You're sending a patch which has "[PATCH]" in the subject but now you
> say it is not really a patch but only a way to get people's attention?!?

But it is a patch, and if it happens to get accepted as is so be
it. If not, it's a good place where to start the conversation on
how to fix the bug in another way.

You guys seem to have a notion that anything which says '[PATCH]'
is somehow final. In my book any patch is up for debate. Nothing
special about this one in that regard.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel