linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] android: binder: Don't get mm from task

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:   Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:28:47 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:     "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Sherry Yang <sherryy@...roid.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] android: binder: Don't get mm from task

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:18:52AM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:58:58PM -0400, Sherry Yang wrote:
> >> Use binder_alloc struct's mm_struct rather than getting
> >> a reference to the mm struct through get_task_mm to
> >> avoid a potential deadlock between lru lock, task lock and
> >> dentry lock, since a thread can be holding the task lock
> >> and the dentry lock while trying to acquire the lru lock.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sherry Yang <sherryy@...roid.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/android/binder_alloc.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
> >>  drivers/android/binder_alloc.h |  1 -
> >>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > I've applied these first 2 patches, but patches 3 and 4 I have already
> > applied to my char-misc-next tree, right?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> I would expect you got a merge conflict from one of those. Using patch
> 3 and 4 in from this patchset should avoid that conflict if your
> eventual 4.15 branch is not based on your current char-misc-next
> branch.

I've resolved the merge conflict so my char-misc-next branch should be
all caught up now.  It would be wonderful if you could verify this.

thanks,

greg k-h