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  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]
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:51:14 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] mm: add missing smp read barrier on getting
 memcg kmem_cache pointer

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:14 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:35:02PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Johannes noticed that reading the memcg kmem_cache pointer in
> > > cache_from_memcg_idx() is performed using READ_ONCE() macro,
> > > which doesn't implement a SMP barrier, which is required
> > > by the logic.
> > >
> > > Add a proper smp_rmb() to be paired with smp_wmb() in
> > > memcg_create_kmem_cache().
> > >
> > > The same applies to memcg_create_kmem_cache() itself,
> > > which reads the same value without barriers and READ_ONCE().
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> >
> > This seems like independent to the series. Shouldn't this be Cc'ed stable?
>
> It is independent, but let's keep it here to avoid merge conflicts.
>
> It has been so for a long time, and nobody complained, so I'm not sure
> if we really need a stable backport. Do you have a different opinion?
>

Nah, it's fine as it is.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists