[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzeWe/1D6L8uuP/o@x1n>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:23:07 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+2b9b4f0895be09a6dec3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in change_protection
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 06:14:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:03:53 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > When PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP not configured, it's still possible to reach pte
> > marker code and trigger an warning. Add a few CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP
> > ifdefs to make sure the code won't be reached when not compiled in.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Is 679d10331910180 ("mm: introduce PTE_MARKER swap entry") the
> appropriate Fixes: target?
I forgot the stable notations, sorry. Probably better use the one that
enables the whole thing, because the diff will touch a few patches later
than 679d10331910180 too, which means the suitable tag could be:
Fixes: b1f9e876862d ("mm/uffd: enable write protection for shmem & hugetlbfs")
>
> Should we backport to -stable?
Yes, 5.19 may need it too (if it'll still squeeze into 6.0; or 6.0 too).
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists