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: <20260106164844.280106-1-boudewijn@delta-utec.com>
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2026 17:48:44 +0100
From: Boudewijn van der Heide <boudewijn@...ta-utec.com>
To: liam.howlett@...cle.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	andrewjballance@...il.com,
	boudewijn@...ta-utec.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org,
	willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Add dead node check in mas_dup_alloc()

> > > 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 for the help and clarification! I will send v2 with just the assertion,
as suggested.

Thanks,
Boudewijn