linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program while calling fork

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: <20230704091808.aa2ed3c11a5351d9bf217ac9@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 09:18:08 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Jacob Young <jacobly.alt@...il.com>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program
 while calling fork

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 09:00:19 +0100 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > > > > Thanks! I'll investigate this later today. After discussing with
> > > > > Andrew, we would like to disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK by default until
> > > > > the issue is fixed. I'll post a patch shortly.
> > > >
> > > > Posted at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230703182150.2193578-1-surenb@google.com/
> > >
> > > As that change fixes something in 6.4, why not cc: stable on it as well?
> > 
> > Sorry, I thought since per-VMA locks were introduced in 6.4 and this
> > patch is fixing 6.4 I didn't need to send it to stable for older
> > versions. Did I miss something?
> 
> 6.4.y is a stable kernel tree right now, so yes, it needs to be included
> there :)

I'm in wait-a-few-days-mode on this.  To see if we have a backportable
fix rather than disabling the feature in -stable.