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]

Message-ID: <20240611101458.7fa78da8@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:14:58 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "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 10:42:28 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> AFAICS that documented way is for a different situation? I assume you mean
> this part:
> 
> * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
> 
>     Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
> 
> But that would assume we actively want to backport this cleanup patch in the
> first place. But as I understand Steven's intention, we want just to make
> sure that if in the future this patch is backported (i.e. as a dependency of
> something else) it won't be forgotten to also backport c9929f0e344a
> ("mm/slob: remove CONFIG_SLOB"). How to express that without actively
> marking this patch for backport at the same time?

Exactly! This isn't to be tagged as stable. It's just a way to say "if you
need this patch for any reason, you also need patch X".

I think "Depends-on" is the way to go, as it is *not* a stable thing, and
what is in stable rules is only about stable patches.

-- Steve