Re: [PATCH 5.10 1/1] io_uring: fix double free in the deferred/cancelled path

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:00:20PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:03:01AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:37:59AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:01:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > 792bb6eb86233 ("io_uring: don't take uring_lock during iowq cancel")
> > > > > > > > inadvertently fixed this issue in v5.12.  This patch cherry-picks the
> > > > > > > > hunk of commit which does so.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Why can't we take all of that commit?  Why only part of it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why didn't the Stable team take it further than v5.11.y?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Look in the archives?  Did it not apply cleanly?
> > > > > 
> > > > > /me goes off and looks...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks like I asked for a backport, but no one did it, I only received a
> > > > > 5.11 version:
> > > > > 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/1839646480a26a2461eccc38a75e98998d2d6e11.1615375332.git.asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > 
> > > > > so a 5.10 version would be nice, as I said it failed as-is:
> > > > > 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/161460075611654@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > 
> > > > Precisely.  This is the answer to your question:
> > > > 
> > > >   > > > Why can't we take all of that commit?  Why only part of it?
> > > > 
> > > > Same reason the Stable team didn't back-port it - it doesn't apply.
> > > > 
> > > > The second hunk is only relevant to v5.11+.
> > > 
> > > Great, then use the "normal" stable style, but down in the s-o-b area
> > > say "dropped second chunk as it is not relevant to 5.10.y".
> > 
> > Just to clarify, by "normal", you mean:
> > 
> >  - Take the original patch
> >  - Apply an "[ Upstream commit <id> ]" tag (or similar)
> >  - Remove the hunk that doesn't apply
> >  - Make a note of the aforementioned action
> >  - Submit to Stable
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Rather than submitting a bespoke patch.  Right?
> 
> Correct.

Got it, thanks.  Wilco.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux