linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/14] tracefs: replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache

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: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:12:38 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Paul E. McKenney"
 <paulmck@...nel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 "workflows@...r.kernel.org" <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, Thorsten Leemhuis
 <linux@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] tracefs: replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple
 kmem_cache_free callback

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:23:11 +0200
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > Depends-on: c9929f0e344a ("mm/slob: remove CONFIG_SLOB")  
> 
> Ick, no, use the documented way of handling this as described in the
> stable kernel rules file.

You mentioned this before, I guess you mean this:

> To send additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline
> comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
> 
> * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
> 
>     Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
>     Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
>     Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
>     Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
>     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
>   The tag sequence has the meaning of::
> 
>     git cherry-pick a1f84a3
>     git cherry-pick 1b9508f
>     git cherry-pick fd21073
>     git cherry-pick <this commit>
> 
>   Note that for a patch series, you do not have to list as prerequisites the
>   patches present in the series itself. For example, if you have the following
>   patch series::
> 
>     patch1
>     patch2
> 
>   where patch2 depends on patch1, you do not have to list patch1 as
>   prerequisite of patch2 if you have already marked patch1 for stable
>   inclusion.

What's with the "3.3.x"? Isn't that obsolete? And honestly, I find the
above much more "ick" than "Depends-on:". That's because I like to read
human readable tags and not machine processing tags. I'm a human, not a machine.

-- Steve