linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kasan: fix memory hotplug during boot

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: <20180522140735.71dcd92e7b013629a7f15f91@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 14:07:35 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "open list:KASAN" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kasan: fix memory hotplug during boot

On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:50:12 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 05/22/2018 07:36 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.05.2018 18:26, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/22/2018 01:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> Using module_init() is wrong. E.g. ACPI adds and onlines memory before
> >>> our memory notifier gets registered.
> >>>
> >>> This makes sure that ACPI memory detected during boot up will not
> >>> result in a kernel crash.
> >>>
> >>> Easily reproducable with QEMU, just specify a DIMM when starting up.
> >>
> >>          reproducible
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> Fixes: fa69b5989bb0 ("mm/kasan: add support for memory hotplug")
> >> Acked-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
> >> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > 
> > Think this even dates back to:
> > 
> > 786a8959912e ("kasan: disable memory hotplug")
> > 
> 
> Indeed.

Is a backport to -stable justified for either of these patches?