This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Ben.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:09:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I've queued it up for 5.5 and 5.4, thanks!
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Greg, I wonder if it makes sense to have you push a "Greg is here --->" "bookmark" in the form of a tag/branch on linux-stable-rc.git? at the very least it'll make it easy to see if something was missed or still waiting in the queue.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:29:06PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:09:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I've queued it up for 5.5 and 5.4, thanks!
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Greg, I wonder if it makes sense to have you push a "Greg is here --->" "bookmark" in the form of a tag/branch on linux-stable-rc.git? at the very least it'll make it easy to see if something was missed or still waiting in the queue.
To quote Jeff Layton:
Hi Greg, there is a performance regression with this patch. We're sorting through potential ways to address it at the moment, but you may want to hold off until we have a fix for that merged. Sorry for the hassle!
Which is why I dropped it for now.
I'll go drop it again :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 07:37 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:29:06PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:09:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I've queued it up for 5.5 and 5.4, thanks!
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Greg, I wonder if it makes sense to have you push a "Greg is here --->" "bookmark" in the form of a tag/branch on linux-stable-rc.git? at the very least it'll make it easy to see if something was missed or still waiting in the queue.
To quote Jeff Layton:
Hi Greg, there is a performance regression with this patch. We're sorting through potential ways to address it at the moment, but you may want to hold off until we have a fix for that merged. Sorry for the hassle!
Which is why I dropped it for now.
I'll go drop it again :)
I didn't see any mention of this on the stable list though. I also don't think that a performance regression outweighs the seriousness of the bug being fixed.
Ben.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:27:56PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 07:37 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:29:06PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:09:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I've queued it up for 5.5 and 5.4, thanks!
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Greg, I wonder if it makes sense to have you push a "Greg is here --->" "bookmark" in the form of a tag/branch on linux-stable-rc.git? at the very least it'll make it easy to see if something was missed or still waiting in the queue.
To quote Jeff Layton:
Hi Greg, there is a performance regression with this patch. We're sorting through potential ways to address it at the moment, but you may want to hold off until we have a fix for that merged. Sorry for the hassle!
Which is why I dropped it for now.
I'll go drop it again :)
I didn't see any mention of this on the stable list though. I also don't think that a performance regression outweighs the seriousness of the bug being fixed.
Ben.
Looks like a fix for the performance regression was committed yesterday to mainline.
dcf23ac3e846c ("locks: reinstate locks_delete_block optimization")
Cheers, Nathan
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:41:30PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:27:56PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 07:37 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:29:06PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:09:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This commit (included in 5.6-rc5) seems to be needed for 5.4 and 5.5 branches:
commit 6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da Author: yangerkun yangerkun@huawei.com Date: Wed Mar 4 15:25:56 2020 +0800
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
I've queued it up for 5.5 and 5.4, thanks!
I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been applied, while some fixes from 5.6-rc6 have.
Greg, I wonder if it makes sense to have you push a "Greg is here --->" "bookmark" in the form of a tag/branch on linux-stable-rc.git? at the very least it'll make it easy to see if something was missed or still waiting in the queue.
To quote Jeff Layton:
Hi Greg, there is a performance regression with this patch. We're sorting through potential ways to address it at the moment, but you may want to hold off until we have a fix for that merged. Sorry for the hassle!
Which is why I dropped it for now.
I'll go drop it again :)
I didn't see any mention of this on the stable list though. I also don't think that a performance regression outweighs the seriousness of the bug being fixed.
Ben.
Looks like a fix for the performance regression was committed yesterday to mainline.
dcf23ac3e846c ("locks: reinstate locks_delete_block optimization")
I've queued both 6d390e4b5d48 and dcf23ac3e846c to 5.5 and 5.4.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Ben Hutchings -
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Nathan Chancellor -
Sasha Levin