linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] [v4.9.y] coredump: fix race condition between mmget_not_zero()/get_task

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, 24 Jun 2019 16:21:50 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>
Cc:     aarcange@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        peterx@...hat.com, rppt@...ux.ibm.com, jgg@...lanox.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, jglisse@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        riandrews@...roid.com, arve@...roid.com, yishaih@...lanox.com,
        dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
        hal.rosenstock@...il.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        srivatsab@...are.com, amakhalov@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] [v4.9.y] coredump: fix race condition between
 mmget_not_zero()/get_task_mm() and core dumping

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 02:33:06AM +0530, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>coredump: fix race condition between mmget_not_zero()/get_task_mm()
>and core dumping
>
>[PATCH v4 1/3]:
>Backporting of commit 04f5866e41fb70690e28397487d8bd8eea7d712a upstream.
>
>[PATCH v4 2/3]:
>Extension of commit 04f5866e41fb to fix the race condition between
>get_task_mm() and core dumping for IB->mlx4 and IB->mlx5 drivers.
>
>[PATCH v4 3/3]
>Backporting of commit 59ea6d06cfa9247b586a695c21f94afa7183af74 upstream.
>
>[diff from v3]:
>- added [PATCH v4 3/3]

Why do all the patches have the same subject line?

I guess it's correct for the first one, but can you explain what's up
with #2 and #3?

If the second one isn't upstream, please explain in detail why not and
how 4.9 differs from upstream so that it requires a custom backport.

The third one just looks like a different patch altogether with a wrong
subject line?

--
Thanks,
Sasha