On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:47 AM Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > So, we fixed it, but we don't know why.
> >
> > Peter Xu's patchset that fixed it is here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821234958.7896-1-pet...@redhat.com/
>
> Yeah,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:47 AM Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> So, we fixed it, but we don't know why.
>
> Peter Xu's patchset that fixed it is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821234958.7896-1-pet...@redhat.com/
Yeah, that's the part that ends up being really painful to backport
(with all
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:33 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >
> > Trying my hand at backporting the patchsets Peter mentioned proved
> > this to be far from easy with many dependencies. Let me look into
> > Vlastimil's suggestion to backport only
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:33 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> Trying my hand at backporting the patchsets Peter mentioned proved
> this to be far from easy with many dependencies. Let me look into
> Vlastimil's suggestion to backport only 17839856fd58 and it sounds
> like 5.4 already followed that
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:07 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:22 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > 1) Ignore the issue (outside of Android at least). The security model of
> > zygote
> > is unusual. Where else a parent of fork() doesn't trust the child, which is
> > the
> >
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:22 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> 1) Ignore the issue (outside of Android at least). The security model of
> zygote
> is unusual. Where else a parent of fork() doesn't trust the child, which is
> the
> same binary?
Agreed. I think this is basically an android-only issue
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 03:21:55PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 2) For backports go with the original approach of 17839856fd58 ("gup: document
> and work around "COW can break either way" issue"), thus break COW during the
> GUP. But only for vmplice() so that nothing else gets broken. I think
On 4/1/21 8:59 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:17 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
Thanks Suren for bringing this up!
>> We received a report that the copy-on-write issue repored by Jann Horn in
>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2045 is still
>>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:47 PM Peter Xu wrote:
>
> Hi, Suren,
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:43:51PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:17 AM Suren Baghdasaryan
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We
Hi, Suren,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:43:51PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:17 AM Suren Baghdasaryan
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We received a report that the copy-on-write issue repored by Jann Horn in
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:17 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >
> > We received a report that the copy-on-write issue repored by Jann Horn in
> > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2045 is still
> > reproducible on
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:17 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> We received a report that the copy-on-write issue repored by Jann Horn in
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2045 is still
> reproducible on 4.14 and 4.19 kernels (the first issue with the reproducer
> coded in
We received a report that the copy-on-write issue repored by Jann Horn in
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2045 is still
reproducible on 4.14 and 4.19 kernels (the first issue with the reproducer
coded in vmsplice.c). I confirmed this and also that the issue was not
13 matches
Mail list logo
