linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/boot/compressed/64: Remove .bss/.pgtable from bzImage

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]

Message-ID: <20200219190640.GA1926073@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:06:40 -0500
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/boot/compressed/64: Remove .bss/.pgtable from
 bzImage

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:22:30PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > There isn't any particular urgency (at least until fg-kaslr patches try
> 
> Ok, I was just making sure you're not pinging because there's something
> more urgent here. See below.
> 
> > to make it 64MiB bigger), but it's unclear how long to wait before
> > sending a reminder -- Documentation/process suggests that comments
> > should be received in a week or so, pinging after 4 and 6 weeks seemed
> > reasonable. If x86 has a longer queue, might be worth documenting that
> > somewhere?
> 
> We try to track all stuff but x86 is super crazy most of the time,
> especially currently, so stuff gets prioritized based on urgency and we
> also try to round-robin through all submitters so that stuff doesn't get
> left out.
> 
> Thus the one-week thing will never work with x86. Once a month ping
> maybe.
> 
> In your case, since it is an improvement which is good to have but not
> absolutely a must and not a bugfix, it is understandable that it would
> get pushed back in priority.
> 
> But stuff usually won't be forgotten and we'll get to it eventually - it
> is just that we're mega swamped all the time. :-\
> 

Ok, thanks.