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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:37:23 +0100 From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> To: Peter Xu <peterx@...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 16.12.22 17:24, Peter Xu wrote: > 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. Right, and these patches are supposed to land in 6.2 as well. Makes sense to me then. Especially, the other parts in patch #2 are worth being in a separate patch. Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists