linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2017 16:20:52 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to_pfn()

On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 03:10:06AM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >Hi Greg,
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:52:04AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> 4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> >I'm a little confused as to why this is being backported, given it
> >wasn't Cc'd stable or marked as a fix.
> >
> >The lm_alias() helper was only introduced in v4.10, and I don't recall
> >seeing that backported.
> >
> >What's going on here?
> 
> Mark,
> 
> We are experimenting with using neural network to aid with patch
> selection for stable kernel trees. There are quite a few commits that
> were not marked for stable, but are stable material, and we're trying
> to get them into their appropriate kernel trees.

I see.

Perhaps it would make sense to mark these patches as having been selected
automatically?

That way, reviewers would be able to better judge whether a backport makes
sense, as it wouldn't be implied that someone has encountered a problem on a
stable kernel, requiring the backport.

Maybe that was on the cover letter -- I only recieved this patch in isolation.

Thanks,
Mark.