linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: revert use of page_cache_next

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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:52:03 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: revert use of page_cache_next_miss()

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:46:57 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> On 06/21/23 15:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:19:58 -0700 Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > IMPORTANT NOTE FOR STABLE BACKPORTS:
> > > > This patch will apply cleanly to v6.3.  However, due to the change of
> > > > filemap_get_folio() return values, it will not function correctly.  This
> > > > patch must be modified for stable backports.
> > > 
> > > This patch I sent previously can be used for the 6.3 backport:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b5bd2b39-7e1e-148f-7462-9565773f6d41@oracle.com/T/#me37b56ca89368dc8dda2a33d39f681337788d13c
> > 
> > Are we suggesting that this be backported?  If so, I'll add the cc:stable.
> > 
> > Because -stable maintainers have been asked not to backport MM patches to
> > which we didn't add the cc:stable.
> 
> Yes, we need to get a fix into 6.3 as well.
> 
> The 'issue' with a backport is noted in the IMPORTANT NOTE above.
> 
> My concern is that adding cc:stable will have it automatically picked up
> and this would make things worse than they are in 6.3.
> 
> My 'plan' was to not add the cc:stable, but manually create a patch for
> 6.3 once this goes upstream.  Honestly, I am not sure what is the best
> way to deal with this.  I could also try to catch the email about the
> automatic backport and say 'no, use this new patch instead'.

OK, how about I leave it without cc:stable, so you can send the 6.3
version at a time of your choosing?