linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] 4.10-rc2 oops in DRM connector code

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: <c14a88a1-ecc1-5727-5e74-6e9bf4fdc3ca@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:24:45 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] 4.10-rc2 oops in DRM connector code

On 01/10/2017 11:43 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:52:47AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 01/10/2017 02:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> commit e73ab00e9a0f1731f34d0620a9c55f5c30c4ad4e
>>> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
>>> Date:   Sun Dec 18 14:35:45 2016 +0100
>>>
>>>     drm: prevent double-(un)registration for connectors
>>>
>>> Lack of that would perfectly explain that oops ... Otherwise still no idea
>>> what's going wrong.
>> No...  That's not in mainline as far as I can see.  Should I test with
>> it applied?
> Hm, I guess failed to cc: stable that one properly, iirc we decided the
> race fix is too academic and can't be hit in reality ;-)
> 
> Testing would be great. Probably conflicts because we extracted
> drm_connector.c only recently, but running s/drm_connector\.c/drm_crtc.c/
> over the diff and then applying with some fudge should take care of that.

It doesn't apply to mainline, with or without the substitution you suggest.

Do you want that commit itself tested from -next?