linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 3.18-rc3 v2 0/2] trace: kdb: Bug fixes for ftdump

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:	Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:16 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, patches@...aro.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 3.18-rc3 v2 0/2] trace: kdb: Bug fixes for ftdump

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:41:32 +0000
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 06/11/14 13:27, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu,  6 Nov 2014 12:41:54 +0000
> > Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> This patchset makes it possible to use kdb's ftdump command without
> >> panicing, crashing or livelocking. The ftdump command cannot be used
> >> at all without these changes.
> >>
> >> IIRC this patches are still pending Jason's ack.
> > 
> > I haven't heard from Jason in a long time. Is he still active?
> 
> [sorry for the delay, I wanted to give Jason a chance to answer this]
> 
> Very occasionally.
> 
> I can't find anything on lkml in the last three months, and I have
> unreviewed kdb patches that stretch back well beyond that.
> 
> That said he still helps people on kgdb-bugreport@ from time-to-time
> (and as recently as last week). I've also had a little bit of private
> contact although nothing very recent.
> 
> On that basis I'd say you shouldn't feel guilty if you have to accept a
> change here without an ack.
> 

He had more than enough time to respond. OK, I'll take it.

Looking at the first patch, I notice that there's no protection of the
static buffer_iter array. I also noticed that there's no protection of
the static iter itself (which was there before your patch). I take it
that this code is not re-entrant.


Thanks!

-- Steve
--
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/