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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:41:58 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        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>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program while
 calling fork

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 12:23 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 at 12:17, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you want me to disable per-VMA locks by default as well?
>
> No. I seriously believe that if the per-vma locking is so broken that
> it needs to be disabled in a development kernel, we should just admit
> failure, and revert it all.
>
> And not in a "revert it for a later attempt" kind of way.
>
> So it would be a "revert it because it added insurmountable problems
> that we couldn't figure out" thing that implies *not* trying it again
> in that form at all, and much soul-searching before somebody decides
> that they have a more maintainable model for it all.

Got it. I hope that's not the case and so far we haven't received an
indication that the fixes were insufficient.

>
> If stable decides that the fixes are not back-portable, and the whole
> thing needs to be disabled for stable, that's one thing. But if we
> decide that in mainline, it's a "this was a failure" thing.

The patches applied cleanly to 6.4.y stable branch the last time I
checked, so should not be a problem.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
>            Linus