linux-kernel - Re: m68k libc5 regression

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806011035420.5559@anakin>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: m68k libc5 regression

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 00:19:32 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> > From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> > 
> > brk: check lower bound properly
> > 
> > The check in sys_brk() on minimum value the brk might have must take 
> > CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK setting into account. When this option is turned on 
> > (i.e. we support ancient legacy binaries, e.g. libc5-linked stuff), the 
> > lower bound on brk value is mm->end_code, otherwise the brk start is 
> > allowed to be arbitrarily shifted.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> 
> OK, we have a problem here.
> 
> Somebody has gone and checked this patch into their tree and it now
> appears in linux-next.
> 
> I do not know how to work out how this patch got into linux-next.

Through quilt/m68k

> It's not in any of the trees which I pull so I guess that person has
> been shuffling URLs without telling me.

... which is not in your tree, AFAIK.

> One of the reasons this is bad is that, frankly, I trust almost nobody
> to remember to backport fixes into 2.6.25.x.  I'm not even at all
> confident that our mystery new part-time memory management maintainer
> will remember to merge this into 2.6.26.  The fact that this person
> failed to add a Cc:stable@...nel.org to the changelog doesn't inspire
> confidence.

It's on my (m68k) list for 2.6.26...
And as soon as it's in, I was going to tell stable...

> I shall merge this fix into my tree (y'know - the one where memory
> management patches are hosted) and I'll get it into 2.6.26 and shall
> offer it to the -stable team.  This will cause me to get collisions
> with the duplicated patch in linux-next but fortunately it is small. 
> This time.

So what's the appropriate way to handle this?
I should have kept it in the m68k series after NEXT_PATCHES_END, so
nobody sees it exists?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/