linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix operator precedence bug in exp

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: <fc23d447-51c1-4916-bab6-ebd547bbfd2c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 10:43:36 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...ux.dev>, rcu@...r.kernel.org, clm@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix operator precedence bug in exp_current()
 invocation

On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 09:14:50AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:50:18 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Does that mean that my intelligence is artificial?
> > 
> > Choose your answer carefully.  But don't worry about my reaction to it.
> > After all, more than six decades of being incessantly targeted by
> > advertising has made me quite good at ignoring things.  ;-)
> 
> Paul, I don't think your intelligence is artificial. Heck I usually tell
> people the two most intelligent kernel developers are you and Al Viro.

Thank you for that high praise, but I fear that you might be selling
Al short.  His ability to dive into random code and find issues is
truly impressive.  Maybe we need him to teach the LLMs a thing or two?

> Although, maybe all intelligence is artificial? Who knows?

We each can choose our definitions to get whatever answer we want.
What could go wrong?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul