[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808231544001.150774@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at
should_reclaim_retry().
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > For those of us who are tracking CVE-2016-10723 which has peristently been
> > labeled as "disputed" and with no clear indication of what patches address
> > it, I am assuming that commit 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from
> > under oom_lock") and this patch are the intended mitigations?
> >
> > A list of SHA1s for merged fixed and links to proposed patches to address
> > this issue would be appreciated.
> >
>
> Commit 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock") is a
> mitigation for CVE-2016-10723.
>
> "[PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at
> should_reclaim_retry()." is independent from CVE-2016-10723.
>
Thanks, Tetsuo. Should commit af5679fbc669 ("mm, oom: remove oom_lock
from oom_reaper") also be added to the list for CVE-2016-10723?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists