linux-kernel - Re: Questions on patch set: x86/fault: #PF improvements, mostly related to USER bit

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:31:46 +0800
From:   Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com>
To:     "Yu, Luming" <luming.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Han, Jing1" <jing1.han@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Questions on patch set: x86/fault: #PF improvements, mostly
 related to USER bit

try again.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:28 AM Yu, Luming <luming.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Cc’ gregkh
>
>
>
> It would be nice if we can see the patch set available in 5.10-xx stable tree.
>
> But Jing’s finding on Linus tree about the commit seemed to indicate the commit id
>
> Of the patch and the commit  log and patch could not lead to the  revision of arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>
> By the patch of the commit itself. So it is hard for Jing to do a clean back port with the inconsistent git log.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Luming
>
>
>
> From: Han, Jing1 <jing1.han@...el.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:44 PM
> To: Lutomirski, Andy <luto@...nel.org>
> Cc: Yu, Luming <luming.yu@...el.com>
> Subject: Questions on patch set: x86/fault: #PF improvements, mostly related to USER bit
>
>
>
> Hi Luto,
>
>
>
> When trying to backport your patch from upstream to 5.10.18: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1612924255.git.luto@kernel.org/
>
> I find something wrong with this commit: 2cc624b0a7e68ba8957b18600181f7d5b0f3e1b6 x86/fault: Split the OOPS code out from no_context()
>
> The code after this commit in upstream does not align with the code showed in the patch.
>
> To be exactly, the function name is “no_context” in the patch, while it is “kernelmode_fixup_or_oops” in upstream code.
>
> Could you please check what is the problem?
>
> (Another confusion is, there are 14 patches total in the link above, but 13 patches in upstream code.)
>
>
>
> I do the backport it because it is preparation for CET, I will backport CET to 5.10.18 when it is upstreamed as there is customer request.
>
> Will you provide the backport patch to 5.10 stable branch?
>
>
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Jing
>
>