linux-kernel - Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock

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]

Date:	Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:32:47 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock

On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> написал:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
[...]
> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we
> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of
> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error
> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is
> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed.
> >
> 
> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap.

This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a
patch to apply on top of it.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)