linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Correct guards for non_swap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200305194431.7fe10d760d9921d0eff106c1@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:44:31 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Correct guards for non_swap_entry()

On Thu,  5 Mar 2020 13:05:50 +0000 Steven Price <steven.price@....com> wrote:

> If CONFIG_DEVICE_PRIVATE is defined, but neither CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE nor
> CONFIG_MIGRATION, then non_swap_entry() will return 0, meaning that the
> condition (non_swap_entry(entry) && is_device_private_entry(entry)) in
> zap_pte_range() will never be true even if the entry is a device private
> one.
> 
> Equally any other code depending on non_swap_entry() will not function
> as expected.

What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change?

Is a cc:stable needed?