linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5.10] arm64: fix a concurrency issue in emulation_proc

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]

Message-ID: <Y9jC2msv2q39+ZA1@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:27:22 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     ruanjinjie <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, haibinzhang@...cent.com,
        hewenliang4@...wei.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.10] arm64: fix a concurrency issue in
 emulation_proc_handler()

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:52:11PM +0800, ruanjinjie wrote:
> This patch is addressing an issue in stable linux-5.10 only.
> 
> In linux-6.1, the related code is refactored in 124c49b1b("arm64:
> armv8_deprecated: rework deprected instruction handling") and
> this issue was incidentally fixed. However, the patch changes a lot and
> is not specific to this issue.

Then what about 5.15.y?  You can not upgrade to that kernel and have a
regression, right?

And nit, you need a ' ' before the '(' character.

But why can we just not take the original commit that fixed this issue?
That way almost always is the best (prevents regressions, makes
backports easier, is actually tested, etc.) ?

thanks,

greg k-h