linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] binder: Don't require the binder lock when killed in binder_thread

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: <20170401064856.GA14971@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Apr 2017 08:48:56 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     arve@...roid.com, riandrews@...roid.com, tkjos@...gle.com,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] binder: Don't require the binder lock when killed in
 binder_thread_read()

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:00:13PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> BTW: I presume that nobody has decided that it would be a wise idea to
> pick the OOM reaper code back to any stable trees?  It seemed a bit
> too scary to me, so I wrote a dumber (but easier to backport) solution
> that avoided the deadlocks I was seeing.  http://crosreview.com/465189
> and the 3 patches above it in case anyone else stumbles on this thread
> and is curious.

What specific upstream OOM patches are you referring to?  I'm always
glad to review patches for stable kernels, just email
stable@...r.kernel.org the git commit ids and we can take it from there.

thanks,

greg k-h