[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200713164345.36088-1-grandmaster@al2klimov.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:43:45 +0200
From: "Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmaster@...klimov.de>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmaster@...klimov.de>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: thp: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones
Rationale:
Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM
as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate.
Deterministic algorithm:
For each file:
If not .svg:
For each line:
If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`:
For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`:
If neither `\bgnu\.org/license`, nor `\bmozilla\.org/MPL\b`:
If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions
return 200 OK and serve the same content:
Replace HTTP with HTTPS.
Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@...klimov.de>
---
Continuing my work started at 93431e0607e5.
See also: git log --oneline '--author=Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@...klimov.de>' v5.7..master
(Actually letting a shell for loop submit all this stuff for me.)
If there are any URLs to be removed completely or at least not just HTTPSified:
Just clearly say so and I'll *undo my change*.
See also: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/27/64
If there are any valid, but yet not changed URLs:
See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/26/837
If you apply the patch, please let me know.
Sorry again to all maintainers who complained about subject lines.
Now I realized that you want an actually perfect prefixes,
not just subsystem ones.
I tried my best...
And yes, *I could* (at least half-)automate it.
Impossible is nothing! :)
mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 78c84bee7e29..9e4b78cf73ab 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2069,7 +2069,7 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
* free), userland could trigger a small page size TLB miss on the
* small sized TLB while the hugepage TLB entry is still established in
* the huge TLB. Some CPU doesn't like that.
- * See http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41322.pdf, Erratum
+ * See https://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41322.pdf, Erratum
* 383 on page 93. Intel should be safe but is also warns that it's
* only safe if the permission and cache attributes of the two entries
* loaded in the two TLB is identical (which should be the case here).
--
2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists