linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] alloc_tag: allocate percpu counters for module tags dynamically

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: <CAJuCfpGAVwRxCA-fdmH_MxD47CPdBD5iFGgEhHpqLAcfLMUX1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 20:19:30 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, 00107082@....com, dennis@...nel.org, 
	tj@...nel.org, cl@...two.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] alloc_tag: allocate percpu counters for module tags dynamically

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 5:21 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2025 16:13:28 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Fixes: 0db6f8d7820a ("alloc_tag: load module tags into separate contiguous memory")
> > > > Reported-by: David Wang <00107082@....com>
> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250516131246.6244-1-00107082@163.com/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/alloc_tag.h | 12 ++++++
> > > >  include/linux/codetag.h   |  8 ++--
> > > >  include/linux/percpu.h    |  4 --
> > > >  lib/alloc_tag.c           | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > >  lib/codetag.c             |  5 ++-
> > > >  5 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Should we backport this fix into -stable kernels?  I'm thinking yes.
> >
> > Yes, I should have CC'ed stable. The patch this one is fixing was
> > first introduced in 6.13. I just tried and it applies cleanly to
> > stable linux-6.13.y and linux-6.14.y.
> > Should I forward this email to stable or send a separate patch to them?
>
> I added cc:stable to the mm.git copy so all is OK.  That's the usual
> workflow.

Perfect. Thanks!