On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:37:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:56:05PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> > > vhost_task_create is supposed to return the vhost_task or NULL on
> > > failure. This fixes it to return the correct value when the allocation
> > > of the struct fails.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 77feab3c4156 ("vhost_task: Allow vhost layer to use copy_process") # mainline only
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+6b27b2d2aba1c80cc13b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The affected patch is not upstream yet, right?
> > I don't know if the tree in question allows rebases - linux-next
> > does. So ideally it would be squashed to avoid issues during bisect.
> > Still it's error path so I guess not a tragedy even without squashing.
>
> I tend to not rebase once stuff has been in linux-next but I make
> exceptions as long as it's before -rc4. For now I've put the patch on
> top (see the other mail I sent) but if it's really important I can
> squash it after the weekend (I'll be mostly afk until then.).
Hard to say how important, but I'd prefer that, yes.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
