linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/402] 5.15.161-rc1 review

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: <596a3b8e-0d36-47bd-b3ac-68812506b307@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 20:09:11 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh.babulal@...cle.com>, pavel@...x.de,
        jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
        allen.lkml@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, acme@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, gpavithrasha@...il.com, irogers@...gle.com,
        Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/402] 5.15.161-rc1 review


On 15/06/2024 13:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 02:10:26PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> I think building perf while adding perf patches would help us prevent from
>> running into this issue. cd tools/perf/ ; make -j$(nproc) all
> 
> Maybe, but I can't seem to build perf at all for quite a while, so I
> doubt that anyone really cares here, right?

We're building perf and it worked before these patches. It's part of our
kernel build and we do ship the result to customers. So we care :-)

>> We can choose one of the three ways to solve this :
>>
>> 1. Drop this patch and resolve conflicts in the next patch by keeping
>> pthread_mutex_*, but this might not help future backports.
> 
> Let me just drop all of the perf patches for now from 5.15 and then I'll
> take some tested backports if really needed.

Sounds good, thanks. We'll have a look at backports.

> Otherwise, why not just use perf from the latest 6.9 tree?

We have a build pipeline that's set up to build everything from the same
source tree and it's not really feasible to mix and match versions like
that -- besides, we don't want to jump from 5.15 to 6.9 for this stuff
any more than we do for the kernel itself.

Thanks,


Vegard