linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mmotm] efi: drop kmemleak

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:   Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:31:59 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm] efi: drop kmemleak_ignore() for page allocator

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 16:13, Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
>
> On 12/26/18 7:02 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 03:35, Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> >>
> >> a0fc5578f1d (efi: Let kmemleak ignore false positives) is no longer
> >> needed due to efi_mem_reserve_persistent() uses __get_free_page()
> >> instead where kmemelak is not able to track regardless. Otherwise,
> >> kernel reported "kmemleak: Trying to color unknown object at
> >> 0xffff801060ef0000 as Black"
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
> >
> > Why are you sending this to -mmotm?
> >
> > Andrew, please disregard this patch. This is EFI/tip material.
>
> Well, I'd like to primarily develop on the -mmotm tree as it fits in a
> sweet-spot where the mainline is too slow and linux-next is too chaotic.
>
> The bug was reproduced and the patch was tested on -mmotm. If for every bugs
> people found in -mmtom, they have to check out the corresponding sub-system tree
> and reproduce/verify the bug over there, that is quite a burden to bear.
>

Yes. But you know what? We all have our burden to bear, and shifting
this burden to someone else, in this case the subsystem maintainer who
typically deals with a sizable workload already, is not a very nice
thing to do.

> That's why sub-system maintainers are copied on those patches, so they can
> decide to fix directly in the sub-system tree instead of -mmotm, and then it
> will propagate to -mmotm one way or another.
>

Please stop sending EFI patches if you can't be bothered to
test/reproduce against the EFI tree.

Thanks,
Ard.