linux-kernel - Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock

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, 19 Mar 2012 23:11:35 +0400
From:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock

19 марта 2012 г. 19:50 пользователь Greg KH
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> написал:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
>> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> написал:
>> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
>> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> написал:
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> >> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> > [...]
>> >> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we
>> >> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of
>> >> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error
>> >> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is
>> >> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap.
>> >
>> > This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a
>> > patch to apply on top of it.
>> >
>>
>> I posted two patches:
>> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not
>> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock
>
> What do you mean by "fixed version"?
>
>> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in
>> cifs_push_posix_locks
>
> What do you mean by this?

Ok, seems I didn't understand this process correctly. I reposted the
new "fixed" version of this patch, because I thought it is more
suitable for stale to merge one correct patch rather than one
incorrect + follow-on fixup. Sorry if I was wrong.

>
> If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I
> need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with
> what is in Linus's tree right now.
>
> So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of
> that patch is please.

Steve has just merged the follow-on patch:
http://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a

but seems hasn't sent a merge request to Linus yet - will let you know
when the patch comes to Linus's tree.

-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky.
--
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/