[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025042945-financial-rumbling-bcd0@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 18:31:09 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Kai Zhang <zhangkai@...as.ac.cn>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable v6.6] riscv: kprobes: Fix wrong lengths passed to
patch_text_nosync()
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> Unlike patch_text(), patch_text_nosync() takes the length in bytes, not
> number of instructions. It is therefore wrong for arch_prepare_ss_slot() to
> pass length=1 while patching one instruction.
>
> This bug was introduced by commit b1756750a397 ("riscv: kprobes: Use
> patch_text_nosync() for insn slots"). It has been fixed upstream by commit
> 51781ce8f448 ("riscv: Pass patch_text() the length in bytes"). However,
> beside fixing this bug, this commit does many other things, making it
> unsuitable for backporting.
We would almost always want the original commit, why not just send that
instead? What is wrong with it being in here as-is?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists