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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024071514-gift-bride-a420@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:15:34 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: botta633 <bottaawesome633@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
	syzbot+7f4a6f7f7051474e40ad@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] locking/lockdep: Forcing subclasses to have same
 name pointer as their parent class

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:34:46AM +0300, botta633 wrote:
> From: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@...il.com>
> 
> Preventing lockdep_set_subclass from creating a new instance of the
> string literal. Hence, we will always have the same class->name among
> parent and subclasses. This prevents kernel panics when looking up a
> lock class while comparing class locks and class names.
> 
> Reported-by: <syzbot+7f4a6f7f7051474e40ad@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
> Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1f ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/lockdep.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ