[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMP5XgedsSDtYa-bZCW--+Hj41sN94tDXQ8_d7c4=fT5bJ7mTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:30 -0800
From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Christopher Lais <chris+android@...thought.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: android: binder: Add some error checks
2012/1/31 Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:22:08AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 07:56:20PM -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> > - Add a mutex to protect against two processes mmapping the
>> > same binder_proc.
>> > - After locking mmap_sem, check that the vma we want to access
>> > (still) points to the same mm_struct.
>> > - Use proc->tsk instead of current to get the files struct since
>> > this is where we get the rlimit from.
>>
>> This doesn't seem related to the locking change at all. Probably
>> this patch should be split into three patches, one bugfix per
>> patch, unless they are very closely related.
>
> I agree. Arve, is this all fixing one problem, or multiple ones? If
> multiple ones, we need this split up into multiple patches.
>
That depend on your point of view. It fixes crashes if you use the
same binder file pointer from multiple processes. It seemed excessive
to have three patches for this.
--
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists