linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double locking object's lock in __delete

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 06 Sep 2016 21:22:05 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:     nick <xerofoify@...il.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double
 locking object's lock in __delete_object

On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 21:12 -0400, nick wrote:
> 
> On 2016-09-06 08:51 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 17:28 -0400, nick wrote:
> > >  
> > > Rather then argue since that will go nowhere. I am posing actual
> > > patches that have been tested on
> > > hardware. 
> > 
> > But not by you, apparently.
> > 
> > The patch below was first posted by somebody else
> > in 2013: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/11/93
> > 
> > When re-posting somebody else's patch, you need to
> > preserve their From: and Signed-off-by: headers.
> > 
> > See Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the details
> > on that.
> > 
> > Pretending that other people's code is your own
> > is not only very impolite, it also means that
> > the origin of the code, and permission to distribute
> > it under the GPL, are in question.
> > 
> > Will you promise to not claim other people's code as
> > your own?
> > 
> I wasn't aware of that. Seems it was fixed before I got to 
> it but was never merged. Next time I will double check if the
> patch work is already out there. Also have this patch but the
> commit message needs to be reworked:

Can you tell us what hardware you tested this
patch on?

What kind of system did you plug the ninja32
controller into?

> From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:20:10 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] ata:Fix incorrect function call ordering in
>  pata_ninja32_init_one
> 
> This fixes a incorrect function call ordering making cards using
> this driver not being able to be read or written to due to the
> incorrect calling of pci_set_master before other parts of the
> card are registered before the pci master bus should be registered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/pata_ninja32.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_ninja32.c b/drivers/ata/pata_ninja32.c
> index 44f97ad..89320c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_ninja32.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_ninja32.c

-- 

All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)