linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] of: fix kmemleak crash caused by imbalance in early memory reservation

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: <20190213134724.f134e3388b591016e96cbf56@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:47:24 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Prateek Patel <prpatel@...dia.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] of: fix kmemleak crash caused by imbalance in early
 memory reservation

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 23:13:29 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> > > As a bonus, since memblock_find_in_range() ensures the allocation in the
> > > specified range, the bounds check can be removed.
> > 
> > hm, why is this against -mm rather than against mainline?
> > 
> > Do the OF maintainers intend to merge the fix?
> 
> There's a conflict this fix and resent memblock related changes in -mm.
> Rob said he anyway wasn't planning to to send this for 5.0 [1] and
> suggested to merge it via your tree.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAL_JsqK-cC6oVZ9MkP+ExOGjCRhA0XxGSgqGKL3W9bFF3rKAgA@mail.gmail.com/

OK, thanks, no probs.