On 07/28/2017 12:31 PM, David Miller wrote:
Sorry, even with this explanation this -stable require is completely
and totally inappropriate.
Puts me between a rock and a hard place trying to address kernel
security issues. Should I instead file KASAN Use-After-Free reports on
stable kernels here for analysis by those with more wisdom to help
refine a more targeted fix?
For instance a dive on one of them did turn up
89e357d83c06b6fac581c3ca7f0ee3ae7e67109e which stopped an unbounded
refcounter by preventing multiple dump requests at the same time. But
the other 4 KASAN reports I focused on this week, we were not so lucky.
You guys are really pushing things way too far with this refcount_t
stuff, seriously.
First round ever on this, I guess I am missing some turmoil, history or
bad blood over refcount_t. Always fun to step on a landmine :-)
NACK.
Please, guidance on where I can go from here.
Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn