linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance

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: <4E7CD560.8010706@suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:52:16 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu.yj@...esas.com>,
	gregkh@...e.de, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance

On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but
>> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to
>> unlock the lock without holding it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
>> ---
>> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's
>> not upstream yet).
> 
> I can't do that,

Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel
with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next
doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch
(I cannot check now, obviously)?

> and Nobuhiro Iwamatsu sent this to me before you, so
> I'll take his version instead, if you don't mind.

No, I don't of course.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs
--
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/