linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/uffd: Fix pte marker when fork() without fork event

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:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:24:40 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/uffd: Fix pte marker when fork() without fork
 event

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:57:33PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> I'm more concerned about backports, when one backports #1 but not #2. In
> theory, patch #2 fixes patch #1, because that introduced IMHO a real
> regression -- a possible memory corruption when discarding a hwpoison
> marker. Warnings are not nice but at least indicate that something needs a
> second look.

Note that backporting patch 1 only is exactly what I wanted to do here - it
means his/her tree should not have the swapin error pte markers at all.

The swapin error pte marker change only existed for a few days in Linus's
tree, so no one should be backporting patch 2.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu