On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:58:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -383,20 +383,22 @@ do {
> > \
> > } while (0)
> >
>
* Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -383,20 +383,22 @@ do {
> \
> } while (0)
>
> /**
> - * rcu_swap_protected() - swap an RCU and a regular pointer
> - * @
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:31 PM Micah Morton wrote:
>
>The best way I know of ensuring this is
> for me to personally run the SafeSetID selftest (in
> tools/testing/selftests/safesetid/) every release, regardless of
> whether we make any changes to SafeSetID itself. Does this sound
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:45 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:35 PM James Morris
> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that SafeSetID is shipping in ChromeOS -- this was
> > part of the rationale for merging it.
>
> Well, if even the developer didn't test it for two months,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:35 PM James Morris wrote:
>
> My understanding is that SafeSetID is shipping in ChromeOS -- this was
> part of the rationale for merging it.
Well, if even the developer didn't test it for two months, I don't
think "it's in upstream" makes any sense or difference.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:30 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> I pushed some (untested) commits out to the dev branch of -rcu, the
> overall effect of which is shown in the patch below. The series
> adds a new rcu_replace() to avoid confusion with swap(), replaces
> uses of rcu_swap_protected() with
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Should we just remove safesetid again? It's not really maintained, and
> it's apparently not used. It was merged in March (with the first
> commit in January), and here we are at end of September and this
> happens.
My understanding is that SafeSetID
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:01:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Micah Morton wrote:
> >
> > Fix for SafeSetID bug that was introduced in 5.3
>
> So this seems to be a good fix, but the bug itself came from the fact that
>
> rcu_swap_protected(..)
>
> is so
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:01 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Anyway, this bug would likely had been avoided if rcu_swap_protected()
> just returned the old pointer instead of changing the argument.
Also, I have to say that the fact that I got the fundamentally buggy
commit in a pull request during
The pull request you sent on Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:41:06 -0700:
> https://github.com/micah-morton/linux.git tags/safesetid-bugfix-5.4
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/1b5fb415442eb3ec946d48afe8c87b0f2fd42d7c
Thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Micah Morton wrote:
>
> Fix for SafeSetID bug that was introduced in 5.3
So this seems to be a good fix, but the bug itself came from the fact that
rcu_swap_protected(..)
is so hard to read, and I don't see *why* it's so pointlessly hard to read.
Yes, we ha
The following changes since commit 609488bc979f99f805f34e9a32c1e3b71179d10b:
Linux 5.3-rc2 (2019-07-28 12:47:02 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
https://github.com/micah-morton/linux.git tags/safesetid-bugfix-5.4
for you to fetch changes up to 21ab8580b383f27b7f59b84ac1699cb26
12 matches
Mail list logo
