linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

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: <2ca5cf59-87a9-443c-82a6-8c56ba7e1e47@lucifer.local>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 09:47:13 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
        david.laight.linux@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org,
        brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, klarasmodin@...il.com,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:09:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:53:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, we're at -rc7 and this series is rather in panic mode and it seems
> > > unnecessarily risky so I'm inclined to set it aside for this cycle.
> > >
> > > If the series is considered super desirable and if people are confident
> > > that we can address any remaining glitches during two months of -rc
> > > then sure, we could push the envelope a bit.  But I don't believe this
> > > is the case so I'm thinking let's give ourselves another cycle to get
> > > this all sorted out?
> >
> > I didn't think this series was in panic mode with one real issue that
> > is not hard to address (memory ordering in
> > __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited()) but I'm obviously biased and might
> > be missing the big picture. In any case, if it makes people nervous I
> > have no objections to your plan.
>
> Well, I'm soliciting opinions here.  What do others think?
>
> And do you see much urgency with these changes?

With apologies to Suren (genuinely!) who is doing great work and is
super-responsive here, this really needs another cycle in my opinion.

As Vlastimil points out there's some non-trivial bits to go, but I am also
firmly of the opinion we need to have as much testing as is practical here.

I don't think this is urgent on any timeline so I'd like to join Vlastimil
to firmly but politely push for this to land in 6.15 rather than 6.14.

Just to reiterate - this is absolutely no reflection on Suren who has been
really great here - it is purely a product of the complexity and scope of
this change.