linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit

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: <f522bcb8-575e-0ac7-69cb-1064e8b38c58@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:09:55 +0200
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, mhocko@...e.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, cheloha@...ux.ibm.com,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context

Le 16/09/2020 à 09:52, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
> On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>>> The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation is due
>>>>>> to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     arch/ia64/mm/init.c    |  6 +++---
>>>>>>     include/linux/mm.h     |  2 +-
>>>>>>     include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++---
>>>>>>     mm/memory_hotplug.c    |  2 +-
>>>>>>     mm/page_alloc.c        | 10 +++++-----
>>>>>>     5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> <formletter>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
>>>>> stable kernel tree.  Please read:
>>>>>        https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>>>>> for how to do this properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> </formletter>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series and
>>>> again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following option
>>>> 1).
>>>>
>>>> Should the "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" tag be on each patch of the series
>>>> even if the whole series has been sent to stable ?
>>>
>>> That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel
>>> release.
>>>
>>>> Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ?
>>>
>>> It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is
>>> not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is the
>>> right thing to do...)
>>
>> Thanks a lot Greg.
>>
>> I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag.
> 
> I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream.

Andrew, can you do that?

> While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an
> easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup.
> 
> 1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a
> follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better.
> 
> 2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify
> patch #1 to also rename this instance.
> 
> Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any
> preference?
> 
>>
>> I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and
>> with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>