linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte

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

Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:26:19 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() thread-safe
 for pmd unshare

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 16:19:52 -0500 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:49:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:35:16 -0500 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Based on latest mm-unstable (9ed079378408).
> > > 
> > > This can be seen as a follow-up series to Mike's recent hugetlb vma lock
> > > series for pmd unsharing, but majorly covering safe use of huge_pte_offset.
> > 
> > We're at -rc7 (a -rc8 appears probable this time) and I'm looking to
> > settle down and stabilize things...
> 
> I targeted this series for the next release not current, because there's no
> known report for it per my knowledge.
> 
> The reproducer needs explicit kernel delays to trigger as mentioned in the
> cover letter.  So far I didn't try to reproduce with a generic kernel yet
> but just to verify the existance of the problem.

OK, thanks, I missed that.

I'll give the series a run in -next for a couple of days then I'll pull
it out until after the next Linus merge window, so it can't invalidate
testing heading into that merge window.