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:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:50:22 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, 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, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> написал:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I posted two patches:
> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not
> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock

What do you mean by "fixed version"?

> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in
> cifs_push_posix_locks

What do you mean by this?

If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I
need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with
what is in Linus's tree right now.

So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of
that patch is please.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/