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]

Message-ID: <20120319192416.GE6339@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:24:16 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
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

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:11:35PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> 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.

I need to stay identical with Linus's tree as much as possible, it's
easier for everyone in the end that way for tracking exactly what
happens.

> > 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.

Ok, please let me know when this goes into Linus's tree and I will
queue it up for the next releases.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/