[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190806204752.GG17747@sasha-vm>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:47:52 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19] Revert "initramfs: free initrd memory if opening
/initrd.image fails"
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:59:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>This reverts commit 25511676362d8f7d4b8805730a3d29484ceab1ec in the 4.19
>stable trees. From what I can tell this commit doesn't do anything to
>improve the situation, mostly just reordering code to call free_initrd()
>from one place instead of many. In doing that, it causes free_initrd()
>to be called even in the case when there isn't an initrd present. That
>leads to virtual memory bugs that manifest on arm64 devices.
>
>The fix has been merged upstream in commit 5d59aa8f9ce9 ("initramfs:
>don't free a non-existent initrd"), but backporting that here is more
>complicated because the patch is stacked upon this patch being reverted
>along with more patches that rewrites the logic in this area.
>
>Let's just revert the patch from the stable tree instead of trying to
>backport a collection of fixes to get the final fix from upstream.
The only dependency for taking the fix, 5d59aa8f9ce9, into 4.19 is
23091e28735 ("initramfs: cleanup initrd freeing") which is not too
scary.
Is it the case that 25511676362d8 shouldn't have been backported to 4.19
for some reason? If it fixes something on 4.19, I think it's better to
take the dependency and the fix instead of reverting.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists