linux-kernel - Re: drm pull for v5.3-rc1

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:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 04:27:59 +1000
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Subject: Re: drm pull for v5.3-rc1

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 03:38, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:08 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm not
> > sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, but I'm going with it
> > for now until I get push back).
>
> Yeah, this is the kind of completely unacceptable stuff that I was
> _afraid_ I'd get from the hmm tree, but didn't.

Looks like we were all focused on making sure hmm tree was good, I
really dropped the ball watching the other ball.

I pulled stuff in from Thomas quite a while ago, and his pull request
did say it had been looked at by mm devs, I looked back
a week or so ago before the flu hit me badly and went hey this isn't
as good, but removing it is a mess I better ping some people, then I
promptly fell into a hole.

It's bad though so I'm just going to revert it all out.

I'll send a new PR today with it reverted, rebuilding the tree might
be possible, but you'd lose a lot of testing confidence in the rest of
it.

> I'm not pulling this. Why did you merge it into your tree, when
> apparently you were aware of how questionable it is judging by the drm
> pull request.

I totally over trusted Thomas on this, I glanced at the helpers when I
merged them and went they seemed reasonable for the vmware address
space coherency model, and they'd been posted to linux-mm a few times
and had some feedback,

I caught it more last week when I was re-reviewing all the stuff in my
tree and I was like hey that isn't right, but removing it might be
tricky, then I spent a week with a couch and no brain.

So I'm totally responsible for this crap landing in my tree, and
Thomas will be getting a lot more push back in future.

Dave.