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: <Z91xsVv98wp7TVrq@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:03:29 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
Cc: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted
 interleave sysfs

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 01:37:22PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote:
> As you mentioned, I agree that Patch 1 may be a bit unclear.
> In fact, Patch 1 and Patch 2 share similar goals, and in my view,
> they only provide complete functionality when applied together.
> 
> 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.
> 

Patch 1 does address the immediate issue of calling kfree instead of the
appropriate put() routine, so it is fine to keep this separate.

> 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.
>

The set adds functionality and changes the original behavior of the
interface - I'm not clear on the rules on backports in this way.

Would need input from another maintainer on that.

Either way, I would keep it separate for now in case just the first
patch is desired for backport.  Maintainers can always pick up the set
if that's desired.

(It also makes these changes easier to review)
~Gregory