linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Add dead node check in mas_dup

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: <vaz4cykqkaa6qksfp6nsnta4rkzqpvaorzdsgy5orapkwx6mil@knfau4tgxmup>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 11:01:27 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Boudewijn van der Heide <boudewijn@...ta-utec.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
        andrewjballance@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Add dead node check in mas_dup_alloc()

* Boudewijn van der Heide <boudewijn@...ta-utec.com> [260106 08:24]:
> > Surely this should just be a lockdep assertion that the appropriate
> > locks are held?
> 
> Just to confirm: do you want me to remove the original runtime check entirely
> and replace it with a lockdep_assert(), or do you want both?
> If it's only the assertion,

Please do not include any runtime checks in this change - Just the
lockdep_assert().

> that would mean that production builds won't enforce the check, right?
> 
> For v2, should I add a Fixes: line and Cc: stable,
> or should i leave it out?

This does not need to be backported and does not fix anything.  It's an
attempt to protect the user from shooting their own foot off by using
the interface incorrectly.

The fact that no one in the tree uses it incorrectly means that any
backport would be for the benefit of out-of-tree drivers, which we do
not support.

Thanks,
Liam