linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix maxnode for mbind(), set_mempolicy() and migrate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51bef112-67b5-48bb-a855-45ad25e05ecd@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:27:41 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix maxnode for mbind(), set_mempolicy() and
 migrate_pages()


>> In any case, we have to document that behavior that existed since the
>> very beginning. Because it would be even *worse* if someone would
>> develop against a new kernel and would get a bunch of bug reports when
>> running on literally every old kernel out there :)
>>
>> So my best guess is that long-term it will create more issues when we
>> change the behavior ... but in any case we have to update the man pages.
> 
> No it would not, if you had the fix and did not modify applications
> that are smart about it then nothing would change. Applications that
> are smart will work the same on both patched and unpatched kernels
> while applications that have the bug will suddenly have the behaviour
> they would have expected from the documentation.

See my other mail, this seems to be the expected behavior since the very 
beginning.

So unless I am missing something important, the only thing to fix here 
is the documentation.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb