linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Fix memory ordering for mm_lock_seq and vm_lock

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]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez1RPZQ0p7dB3BsVwiTPHqge1Ja7E-XCQp-P7xBHT+AM=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 19:29:09 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Fix memory ordering for mm_lock_seq and vm_lock_seq

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:51:07 +0200 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > BACKPORT WARNING: One of the functions changed by this patch (which I've
> > written against Linus' tree) is vma_try_start_write(), but this function
> > no longer exists in mm/mm-everything. I don't know whether the merged
> > version of this patch will be ordered before or after the patch that
> > removes vma_try_start_write(). If you're backporting this patch to a
> > tree with vma_try_start_write(), make sure this patch changes that
> > function.
>
> I staged this patch as a hotfix, ahead of mm-unstable material.
>
> The conflict is with Hugh's "mm: delete mmap_write_trylock() and
> vma_try_start_write()"
> (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/4e6db3d-e8e-73fb-1f2a-8de2dab2a87c@google.com)
>
> I fixed the reject in the obvious way (deleted the function anyway),
> but there's a possibility that the ordering issue you have addressed
> will now be reintroduced by Hugh's series, so please let's review that.

Thanks. I've looked at Hugh's series and what you did (deleting the
function anyway) looks good to me.