linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 02/10] futex: Add missing error handling to FUTEX_REQUEUE

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:   Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:31:29 -0800
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 02/10] futex: Add missing error handling to
 FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:06:39PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:36:40AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Thomas spotted that fixup_pi_state_owner() can return errors and we
> > > fail to unlock the rt_mutex in that case.
> > > 
> > 
> > We handled this explicitly before Patch 1/10, so can this be rolled into 1/10
> > (er 9) as a single commit?
> 
> I don't think we did, see how this branch doesn't set pi_mutex.
> 

So it is, I stand corrected. So for 2/10 also then:

Reviewed-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center