linux-kernel - Re: Request to cherry-pick 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9 to v5.10 and v5.4

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: <YxIS4jWE03E5pZjS@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 16:27:46 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Varsha Teratipally <teratipally@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request to cherry-pick 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9
 to v5.10 and v5.4

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:59:11PM +0000, Varsha Teratipally wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Commit 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9("ipc: replace costly
> bailout check in sysvipc_find_ipc()" fixes a high cve and optimizes the
> costly loop by adding a checkpoint, which I think might be a good
> candidate for the stable branches

What do you mean by "high cve"?

And that feels like it's an artificial benchmark fixup, what real
workload benefits from this change?

thanks,

greg k-h