[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5h7fSoZTA+3bDTn93JuFgY=SUGEq=gpDYE8rdSfuNcPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:14:24 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
stable@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm, oom: fix use-after-free in oom_kill_process
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
> fixing commit: 6b0c81b3be11 mm, oom: reduce dependency on tasklist_lock.
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.3, v4.19.16, v4.14.94, v4.9.151, v4.4.171, v3.18.132.
>
> v4.20.3: Build OK!
> v4.19.16: Build OK!
> v4.14.94: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> 5989ad7b5ede ("mm, oom: refactor oom_kill_process()")
>
Very easy to resolve the conflict. Please let me know if you want me
to send a version for 4.14-stable kernel.
> v4.9.151: Build OK!
> v4.4.171: Build OK!
> v3.18.132: Build OK!
>
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
>
We do want to backport this patch to stable kernels. However shouldn't
we wait for this patch to be applied to Linus's tree first.
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists