On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I can mark it for stable, and then when you get the "this did not apply
> to this tree" email, you can send a backported patch to me so I know to
> take that one then.
Ack, thanks.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:06:54AM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Does this need to go to older kernels as well?
>
> Yes, this should apply cleanly to 4.14 as well. It won't apply to
> pre-4.14 kernels because of the fine-grained locking change
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Does this need to go to older kernels as well?
Yes, this should apply cleanly to 4.14 as well. It won't apply to
pre-4.14 kernels because of the fine-grained locking changes, but the
same issue exists there and I suspect it would cause the same c
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:29:03AM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> This can't happen with normal nodes (because you can't get a ref
> to a node you own), but it could happen with the context manager;
> to make the behavior consistent with regular nodes, reject
> transactions into the context manager
This can't happen with normal nodes (because you can't get a ref
to a node you own), but it could happen with the context manager;
to make the behavior consistent with regular nodes, reject
transactions into the context manager by the process owning it.
Reported-by: syzbot+09e05aba06723a94d...@syz
5 matches
Mail list logo
