On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 17:29 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> sorry for delay,
> 
> On 02/20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 20:35 +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> > > Am 19.02.2013 20:05, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:51:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> will we see a backport for the above fix for the 3.0.X tree?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it applicable to the 3.0.x tree?  And if so, someone needs to
> > > >> backport it, and provide it to me, can you?
> > > >
> > > > For 3.2.y I've cherry-picked (in this order):
> > > >
> > > > 848e8f5f0ad3169560c516fff6471be65f76e69f
> > > > 95cf00fa5d5e2a200a2c044c84bde8389a237e02
> > > > 910ffdb18a6408e14febbb6e4b6840fd2c928c82
> > > > 9899d11f654474d2d54ea52ceaa2a1f4db3abd68
> > > > 9067ac85d533651b98c2ff903182a20cbb361fcb
> > > >
> > > > The last three fix the more recently-discovered race.  The first two
> > > > are a fix for an x86-specific race in ptrace, made by Oleg back in
> > > > August.  The fourth at least textually depends on the first two.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure whether 3.0.y would need anything more.
> > > at least on 3.0 this picking does not work as
> > > 910ffdb18a6408e14febbb6e4b6840fd2c928c82
> > >
> > > does not apply. But backports of the last three are here:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg31694.html
> >
> > Oleg, could you comment on whether 'ptrace/x86: Partly fix
> > set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr() logic' should be backported
> > to 3.0.y as well?
> 
> No, I don't think -stable really needs this fix. The fix itself is fine
> (I hope ;), but the bug is not serious.
> 
> You can apply 9899d11f654474d2d54ea52ceaa2a1f4db3abd68 without the comment
> changes in arch/x86/kernel/step.c

Thanks a lot.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to