linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kasan: fix memory hotplug during boot

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:   Wed, 23 May 2018 12:59:32 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "open list:KASAN" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kasan: fix memory hotplug during boot



On 05/23/2018 12:07 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:50:12 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 05/22/2018 07:36 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 22.05.2018 18:26, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/22/2018 01:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> Using module_init() is wrong. E.g. ACPI adds and onlines memory before
>>>>> our memory notifier gets registered.
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes sure that ACPI memory detected during boot up will not
>>>>> result in a kernel crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easily reproducable with QEMU, just specify a DIMM when starting up.
>>>>
>>>>          reproducible
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: fa69b5989bb0 ("mm/kasan: add support for memory hotplug")
>>>> Acked-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
>>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>>
>>> Think this even dates back to:
>>>
>>> 786a8959912e ("kasan: disable memory hotplug")
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.
> 
> Is a backport to -stable justified for either of these patches?
> 

I don't see any reasons to not backport these.
The first one fixes failure to online memory, why it shouldn't be fixed in -stable?
The second one is fixes boot crash, it's definitely stable material IMO.