linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15

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, 15 Oct 2018 15:13:19 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:24:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:12:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:26:37 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ALl ppc qemu tests (including big endian pseries) also generate a warning.
> > > 
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:1301 .memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x20/0x68
> 
> That is:
> 
> static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
>                                         phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
>                                         phys_addr_t end, int nid,
>                                         enum memblock_flags flags)
> {
>        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!align))
>                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
> 
> Looks like patch
> 
>   "memblock: stop using implicit alignment to SMP_CACHE_BYTES"
> 
> missed some places ...

To be expected, I guess.  I'm pretty relaxed about this ;) Let's do
another sweep in a week or so, after which we'll have a couple of
months to mop up any leftovers.