linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs

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: <20250321043701.928-1-rakie.kim@sk.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:36:55 +0900
From: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
	david@...hat.com,
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
	kernel_team@...ynix.com,
	honggyu.kim@...com,
	yunjeong.mun@...com,
	Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:59:32 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:40:01PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:17:46 +0900 Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Gregory
> > 
> > I initially planned to separate this patch from the hotplug-related patch
> > series as an independent update. However, after reviewing the code following
> > Jonathan's suggestion to consolidate `kobject` and `node_attrs` into a single
> > struct, I realized that most of the intended functionality for Patch 2 was
> > already incorporated.
> > 
> > As a result, Patch 1 now only contains the `kobject_put` fix, while the
> > struct consolidation work has been included in Patch 2. Given the current
> > design, it seems more natural to keep Patch 1 and Patch 2 together as part
> > of the same patch series rather than separating them.
> > 
> > Rakie
> > 
> 
> The point of submitting separately was to backport this to LTS via
> -stable.  We probably still want this since it ostensibly solves a
> memory leak - even if the design is to support this work.
> 
> ~Gregory
> 

Patch 1 and Patch 2 are closely related, and I believe that both patches
need to be combined to fully support the functionality.

Initially, I thought that Patch 1 was the fix for the original issue and
considered it the candidate for a backport.
However, upon further reflection, I believe that all changes in Patch 1
through Patch 3 are necessary to fully address the underlying problem.

Therefore, I now think it makes more sense to merge Patch 1 and Patch 2
into a single patch, then renumber the current Patch 3 as Patch 2,
and treat the entire set as a proper -stable backport candidate.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this suggestion.

Rakie