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: <20250114102737.1815-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:27:36 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	hannes@...xchg.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 10:09:42 +0100 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> On 1/14/25 05:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > Well, I'm soliciting opinions here.  What do others think?
> > 
> > And do you see much urgency with these changes?
> 
> I don't see the urgency and at this point giving it more time seems wise.
> Seems like v10 won't be exactly trivial as we'll change from refcount_t to
> atomic_t? And I'd like to see PeterZ review the lockdep parts too.

+1