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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:39:35 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     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 Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> 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?

Hm, just cherry-picked it on top of Linus' latest 4.10 git, applies
cleanly there. The substituation was for 4.9. I can send you the patch
here, but seems all fine from what I can tell ...
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch