linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: Drop tty->count on tty

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: <b6481bae-a5bd-139f-d193-198a02d24bd8@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:47:27 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: Drop tty->count on tty_reopen() failure

On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> I would just do:
>>   if (!retval)
>>     tty->count++;
>> here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count.
> 
> I thought about that and probably should have described in commit
> message why I haven't done that: I prefer to keep it as was as I did Cc
> stable tree - to keep the chance of regression to minimum.
> 
> I agree that your way is cleaner, but probably it may be done as
> cleanup on top for linux-next..

Agreed, so care to cook it up as 5/4 in this series :)?

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs