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: <20260106132418.57408-1-boudewijn@delta-utec.com>
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2026 14:24:18 +0100
From: Boudewijn van der Heide <boudewijn@...ta-utec.com>
To: willy@...radead.org
Cc: Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
	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
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,
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?

Also, do you want me to include a Suggested-by tag
for your lockdep_assert suggestion?

Thanks,
Boudewijn