linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the xen-tip tree

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: <60058ac8-9d9a-f1f5-c6ad-948fbec5583c@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:15:46 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@...m.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree
 with the xen-tip tree

On 08/15/2018 08:05 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:02:10 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   1d3145675538 ("xen/gntdev: Make private routines/structures accessible")
>>
>> from the xen-tip tree and commit:
>>
>>   aaefcabe9c25 ("mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers")
>>
>> from the akpm-current tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>> index c866a62f766d,55b4f0e3f4d6..000000000000
>> --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>> @@@ -479,7 -441,20 +479,20 @@@ static const struct vm_operations_struc
>>   
>>   /* ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
>>   
>>  -static bool in_range(struct grant_map *map,
>> ++static bool in_range(struct gntdev_grant_map *map,
>> + 			      unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> + {
>> + 	if (!map->vma)
>> + 		return false;
>> + 	if (map->vma->vm_start >= end)
>> + 		return false;
>> + 	if (map->vma->vm_end <= start)
>> + 		return false;
>> + 
>> + 	return true;
>> + }
>> + 
>>  -static void unmap_if_in_range(struct grant_map *map,
>>  +static void unmap_if_in_range(struct gntdev_grant_map *map,
>>   			      unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>   {
>>   	unsigned long mstart, mend;
>> @@@ -503,15 -472,26 +510,26 @@@
>>   	WARN_ON(err);
>>   }
>>   
>> - static void mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>> + static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>>   				struct mm_struct *mm,
>> - 				unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> + 				unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>> + 				bool blockable)
>>   {
>>   	struct gntdev_priv *priv = container_of(mn, struct gntdev_priv, mn);
>>  -	struct grant_map *map;
>>  +	struct gntdev_grant_map *map;
>> + 	int ret = 0;
>> + 
>> + 	/* TODO do we really need a mutex here? */
>> + 	if (blockable)
>> + 		mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
>> + 	else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock))
>> + 		return -EAGAIN;
>>   
>> - 	mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
>>   	list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
>> + 		if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
>> + 			ret = -EAGAIN;
>> + 			goto out_unlock;
>> + 		}
>>   		unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);


I think I mentioned this earlier --- this doesn't look right. Not the
conflict resolution but the original patch.

Should I send a patch against -next? Or -mm?


-boris





Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)