linux-kernel - Re: [lkp-robot] [mm] 1be7107fbe: kernel_BUG_at

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170622205115.GA4938@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:51:15 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk@...7.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [mm] 1be7107fbe: kernel_BUG_at_mm/mmap.c

On 06/22, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Something like the patch below? Yes, I thought about this too.
>
> Yes, that patch (times 11 for all the architectures)
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, yes, this is clear to me. But only after you have already explained
this in your previous email ;)

> But my own preference this morning is to do nothing, until we hear
> more complaints and can classify them as genuine userspace breakage,
> as opposed to testcases surprised by a new kernel implementation.

OK. Agreed. Lets wait for the "real" bug report.

FYI. I am still investigating that redhat internal bug report. And yes,
it was the real application. But. I still think that it fails by another
reason, just the test-case they provided doesn't match the reality and
it hits another (this) problem by accident.

Oleg.