linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount

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: <20200224111723.415a940d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:17:23 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     zanussi@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:03:17 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On 2020-02-21 15:24:47 [-0600], zanussi@...nel.org wrote:
> > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> > 
> > v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
> > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.  
> 
> This is required but it is not part of the next "higher" tree
> (v4.19-RT). Which means if someone moves from v4.14-RT to the next tree
> (v4.19-RT in this case) that someone would have the bug again.
> 
> Could you please wait with such patches or did the I miss the v4.19-RT
> tree with this change?
> 

No, I'm just behind in backporting patches.

We need to work on synchronizing better what gets backported. :-/

-- Steve