linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 02/96] s390/runtime instrumention: fix possible memory corruption

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:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:15:34 +0100
From:   Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 02/96] s390/runtime instrumention: fix possible
 memory corruption

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:08:47PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:02:32PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 11:22 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > commit d6e646ad7cfa7034d280459b2b2546288f247144 upstream.
> > [...]
> > > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/runtime_instr.c
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/runtime_instr.c
> > > @@ -47,11 +47,13 @@ void exit_thread_runtime_instr(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct task_struct *task = current;
> > >  
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > >  	if (!task->thread.ri_cb)
> > >  		return;
> > 
> > This return path now leaves preemption disabled.  This seems to have
> > been fixed upstream by commit 8d9047f8b967 "s390/runtime
> > instrumentation: simplify task exit handling".
> 
> "simplify" doesn't seem to imply "fixes a bug" :)

Indeed ;) That where two subsequent patches, but incorrectly split by me...

> Heiko, should I also queue this patch up?

Yes, please.

> thanks Ben for the review.

Thanks from me as well!