linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.16 231/272] fanotify: Avoid lost events due to ENOMEM for unlimited queues

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, 29 May 2018 08:57:25 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.16 231/272] fanotify: Avoid lost events due to ENOMEM
 for unlimited queues

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 28-05-18 15:39:04, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > 4.16-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > 
> > I do not have objections for applying this patch to stable, but AFAIK
> > it is a correctness patch that doesn't fix any bug and it was mainly added
> > as a prerequisite to memcg accounting of event allocations, which is not
> > yet merged and not destined for stable.
> > 
> > Jan? do you agree with my statements above?
> 
> Yes, you are correct. The problem this patch tries to fix is theoretical in
> nature at this point. However my feeling is stable tree has got rather
> benevolent in accepting patches in last months and Greg wishes it stays that
> way so I'm objecting only to patches I know introduce regressions at this
> point.

I am getting "more benevolent", but the patch should be there for at
least some good reason.  This one was picked by the "semi-automatic"
checker, and at first glance seems like it is a real bugfix.  But, as
you mention, it was only needed in preparation for a future patch, then
this patch is not needed in the stable trees, and I'll go drop it now.

thanks,

greg k-h