linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] lib/group_cpus: relax atomicity requirement in grp_spread_init

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: <20231229103948.4a78a75a83962df0874d04f1@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:39:48 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko
 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Rasmus Villemoes
 <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] lib/group_cpus: relax atomicity requirement in
 grp_spread_init_one()

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:09:30 -0800 Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:

> Because nmsk and irqmsk are stable, extra atomicity is not required.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> NAKed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>

Well that's unusual.  I suggest that the changelog at least describe the
objection, and its counterargument?