linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] alpha: Modify the definition logic of WEAK_PER

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: <20250612121545.10868G00-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:15:45 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] alpha: Modify the definition logic of WEAK_PER_CPU

On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 08:06:25PM +0800, Hao Ge wrote:
> > Furthermore this removes ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU and defines
> > MODULE_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU while the common code conversion happens
> > only with patch 4. Or in other words: if patches are split like this
> > things break.
> > 
> > Same is true for patch 3. Just merging patches 2-4 would be the
> > easiest solution to this problem.
> 
> I think this should be CC'd to the stable branch.

Why should this go to stable? This is just a minor optimization.

> I'm wondering if these need to be integrated into a single patch.
> 
> I'm not sure. What do you think?

stable or not: this series must be bisectable, which is currently not the case.