linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/mmap: fix __mmap_region() error handling in rare merge failure case

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: <6m2hn4wzvvgozrrvvivy6brxiafx6g2qaedkrcicxnmflcopzg@7idyf4fuymff>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:25:59 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        syzbot+bc6bfc25a68b7a020ee1@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/mmap: fix __mmap_region() error handling in
 rare merge failure case

* Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> [241119 09:17]:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 03:32:14PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > Okay, before I get yelled at...
> > 
> > This commit is only necessary for 6.12.y until Lorenzo's other fixes to
> > older stables land (and I'll have to figure out what to do in each).
> > 
> > The commit will not work on mm-unstable, because it doesn't exist due to
> > refactoring.
> > 
> > The commit does not have a tag about "upstream commit" because there
> > isn't one - the closest thing I could point to does not have a stable
> > git id.
> > 
> > So here I am with a fix for a kernel that was released a few hours ago
> > that is not necessary in v6.13, for a bug that's out there on syzkaller.
> > 
> > Also, it's very unlikely to happen unless you inject failures like
> > syzkaller.  But hey, pretty decent turn-around on finding a fix - so
> > that's a rosy outlook.
> 
> Why isn't this needed in 6.13.y?  What's going to be different in there
> that this isn't needed?

The code has been refactored and avoids the scenario.  I'd name the
refactoring commit as the upstream commit, but it does not have a stable
git id as it's in mm-unstable.  So I'm at a bit of a loss of how to
follow the process.

> 
> Do you just want me to take this for the 6.12.y tree now?  I'll be glad
> to, just confused a bit.

Yes, please.


Thanks,
Liam