On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:05:42AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 09:05, Oleksandr Natalenko
> <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > On 25.11.2020 08:53, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > The memory leak addressed by commit fe5186cf12e3 is a false positive:
> > > all allocations are recorded in a linked list, and freed when the
> > > filesystem is unmounted. This leads to double frees, and as reported
> > > by David, leads to crashes if SLUB is configured to self destruct when
> > > double frees occur.
> > >
> > > So drop the redundant kfree() again, and instead, mark the offending
> > > pointer variable so the allocation is ignored by kmemleak.
> > >
> > > Cc: Vamshi K Sthambamkadi <vamshi.k.sthambamkadi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Should also have:
> >
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.9
> >
>
> No it should not. The fixes tag should be sufficient.
No, "Fixes:" does not ever mean "I want this patch to go to a stable
tree". It might happen, it might not, if you REALLY know this should go
to a stable tree, please follow the directions for what we have been
doing for 15+ years now, as documented in:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Hint, use "cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" if you know you want it applied,
otherwise it's just a best-guess-effort on our part.
thanks,
greg k-h
