linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generic support for revoking mappings

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, 27 Sep 2010 06:52:43 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	caiqian@...hat.com
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generic support for revoking mappings

caiqian@...hat.com writes:

> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index 6128dc8..00161a4 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -2009,6 +2009,7 @@ static int __split_vma(struct mm_struct * mm, struct vm_area_struct * vma,
>                         removed_exe_file_vma(mm);
>                 fput(new->vm_file);
>         }
> +       unlink_anon_vmas(new);
>   out_free_mpol:
>         mpol_put(pol);
>   out_free_vma:
>
> It became this after manually merged them,

As a conflict resolution doesn't look wrong, but clearly I should rebase
on top of mmtom and see what is going on.

> @@ -2002,20 +2006,15 @@ static int __split_vma(struct mm_struct * mm, struct vm_area_struct * vma,
>                 return 0;
>  
>         /* Clean everything up if vma_adjust failed. */
> -       if (new->vm_ops && new->vm_ops->close)
> -               new->vm_ops->close(new);
> -       if (new->vm_file) {
> -               if (vma->vm_flags & VM_EXECUTABLE)
> -                       removed_exe_file_vma(mm);
> -               fput(new->vm_file);
> -       }
>         unlink_anon_vmas(new);
> +       remove_vma(new);
> + out_err:
> +       return err;
>   out_free_mpol:
>         mpol_put(pol);
>   out_free_vma:
>         kmem_cache_free(vm_area_cachep, new);
> - out_err:
> -       return err;
> +       goto out_err;
>  }

Is it possible that something did not recompile cleanly?  Where I
touched the struct address_space if everything did not rebuild it is
possible for two pieces of incrementally compiled code to think they are
accessing the same fields and are not.

Eric
--
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/