linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait

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: <20210603211012.GA68208@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 23:10:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:03:38PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 23:53:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > You surely made your point that this is well thought out.
> 
> Really impressed with your effort to generously interpret the first
> version of a proof of concept patch that explicitly was aimed at getting
> feedback on the basic design and the different use cases.

You *completely* failed to describe any. I'm with tglx; I see no reason
to even look at the patches. If you don't have a problem, you don't need
a solution.