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]

Message-ID: <CAMP5XgcHj_LtPW2dYGVo2Lj2+9HOTjzSVBk2xiRu9g_bz2b1Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:36:48 -0700
From:   Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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

I have not tested your branch directly, but the relevant code in
char-misc-next is now identical to the code I tested.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg