linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hugetlb bug due to user_shm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A929BF5.2050105@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:56:05 +0200
From:	Stefan Huber <shuber2@...il.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...y.sbg.ac.at>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	William Irwin <wli@...ementarian.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hugetlb bug due to user_shm_unlock call (fwd)

> However, though I can well believe that your patch works well for you,
> I don't think it's general enough: there is no guarantee that the tests
> in can_do_hugetlb_shm() will give the same answer to the user who ends
> up calling shm_destroy() as it did once upon a time to the user who
> called hugetlb_file_setup().
> 
> So, please could you try this alternative patch below, to see if it
> passes your testing too, and let us know the result?  I'm sure we'd
> like to get a fix into 2.6.31, and into 2.6.30-stable.


Yes, your observation is right and your modified patch works good for
me.

So long
Stefan




Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (262 bytes)