On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello. > > Next patch is mm-related but this patch is not. > Via which tree should these patches go? > ---------------------------------------- > >From 48c1b457eb32d7a029e9a078ee0a67974ada9261 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:49:17 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] android, lmk: Protect task->comm with task_lock. > > Passing task->comm to printk() wants task_lock() protection in order > to avoid potentially emitting garbage bytes. > > Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> We've gone through these types of patches before and Andrew has said that we aren't necessarily concerned with protecting task->comm here since the worst-case scenario is that it becomes truncated. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
