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  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, 6 May 2020 17:26:56 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Cheers for the quick reply!
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > missing some bits:
> > >
> > >   * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > >     data_race():
> > >
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200401101714.44781-1-elver@google.com
> >
> > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > not see it in -next.  So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
>
> Brill, thanks.
>
> > >   * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > >     my READ_ONCE() work:
> > >
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200424154730.190041-1-elver@google.com/
> > >
> > >     I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > >     in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > >     is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> >
> > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > tentatively for v5.8).  Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
>
> Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
>
> > > What's the best base for me to use?
> >
> > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
>
> That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
>
> > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > for the hassle!
>
> No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> it was easier to ask the experts ;)

Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.

Thanks,
-- Marco

Powered by blists - more mailing lists