On 2/1/2019 7:57 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 1/29/2019 2:51 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >>>> Okay, so let's attempt the change above where we just do the access >>>> check directly. Although I'm a little concerned that without a >>>> reproducer we might not end up fixing the problem we're trying to fix. >>>> Is anyone in touch with the person who originally reported the >>>> problem? It would be great if we could get that person to verify the >>>> change ... >>> I decided to go with maintaining a list in IB core. The notifier call is done under rcu_read_lock vs spin_lock_irq for register/unregister, so we shouldn't have any problems in that case. So only registering once basically achieves the same thing as taking it all out. I'm testing it now. I'll send it for internal review today assuming it checks out. Hopefully Leon can get it posted tomorrow, I know Don has some schedule pressure here. >> Okay sounds good. We're still at -rc4 so as long as we can get >> something posted this week, or early next, I see no reason why it >> can't make the upcoming merge window. >> >> I'm guessing Don's schedule pressure is more a RH deadline, and not an >> upstream constraint. > I just wanted to check in and see how this was progressing? I didn't > see anything in my inbox, but perhaps I missed it ... It's passed internal review. Leon should send it soon (Sunday at the soonest, IL has Friday-Saturday weekends), he may be waiting for a regression run to finish.
