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:   Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:19:34 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, fabecassis@...dia.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, cl@...ux.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] mm: move_pages: return valid node id in status if the page is already on the target node



> On Dec 5, 2019, at 7:04 PM, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
> 
> Felix's code is not random test code. It's code he wrote and he expected it to work.

Sure, but could he show a bit detail if the kernel will start to behavior as expected like what was written in the manpage to return ENOENT in this case, why is it not acceptable? i.e., why is it important to depend on the broken behavior?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ