On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:46:11 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Greg, > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:36:15 -0800 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:21:18PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > A patchset from Oleg Nesterov which is in linux-next.git > > > > > > kmod: make __request_module() killable > > > kmod: introduce call_modprobe() helper > > > usermodehelper: ____call_usermodehelper() doesn't need do_exit() > > > usermodehelper: implement UMH_KILLABLE > > > usermodehelper: introduce umh_complete(sub_info) > > > > > > contains killable request_module() code. > > > These patches do not have "Cc: <[email protected]> [2.6.11+]" line, > > > but > > > distributors might want them because this patchset is needed for > > > preventing > > > local memory allocation DoS attacks. > > > > Thanks for letting me know, I'll watch out for when they hit Linus's > > tree in the 3.4-rc1 merge window. > > > > You wouldn't happen to know the git commit ids for these patches, do > > you? That would help me me tracking them. > > Unfortunately, these patches are in Andrew's tree and so their commit > id's change every day (as his tree is rebased on the rest of linux-next > each day). > > Andrew, should they be marked with Cc: stable? I'd decided "no", because nobody has hit the bug in the real world and the patches are fairly extensive. Test cases to demonstrate the problem were developed, but they involved driving the MM system into oom-killing, and if you have hostile unprivileged users who can do that to your machine, you already have problems. But maybe I was wrong in this decision: what is the justification for backporting these? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
