linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:47:35 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4

On 2021-08-04 10:22:59 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> In that regard, I do still consider those patches out-of-tree, which
> they are. And while I'm more sympathetic to them compared to other
> out-of-tree code as there's a long term plan to get it all in, it's
> still out-of-tree. Best solution here is probably to just carry that
> particular change in the RT patchset for now.

So today in the morning I learned that there is a memory allocation in
an IRQ-off section and now, a patch later, it is almost gone. So that
makes me actually happy :)

The spin_lock_irq() vs local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is documented
in Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst.
That said I have no problem by carrying that patch in the RT-patchset
and revisit it later.

Sebastian