Message ID | 158072584492.743488.4616022353630142921.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | rxrpc: Fixes ver #2 | expand |
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:30:45 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Here are a number of fixes for AF_RXRPC: > > (1) Fix a potential use after free in rxrpc_put_local() where it was > accessing the object just put to get tracing information. > > (2) Fix insufficient notifications being generated by the function that > queues data packets on a call. This occasionally causes recvmsg() to > stall indefinitely. > > (3) Fix a number of packet-transmitting work functions to hold an active > count on the local endpoint so that the UDP socket doesn't get > destroyed whilst they're calling kernel_sendmsg() on it. > > (4) Fix a NULL pointer deref that stemmed from a call's connection pointer > being cleared when the call was disconnected. > > Changes: > > v2: Removed a couple of BUG() statements that got added. > > The patches are tagged here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git > rxrpc-fixes-20200130 Thank you David! I pulled rxrpc-fixes-20200202 since that tag seems to correspond to the patches on the mailing list. Should I queue these for stable? There are some fixes to fixes here, so AFAIK we need: 5273a191dca65a675dc0bcf3909e59c6933e2831 4.9+ 04d36d748fac349b068ef621611f454010054c58 4.19+ f71dbf2fb28489a79bde0dca1c8adfb9cdb20a6b 4.9+ fac20b9e738523fc884ee3ea5be360a321cd8bad 4.19+
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > I pulled rxrpc-fixes-20200202 since that tag seems to correspond to > the patches on the mailing list. Sorry, yes - I forgot to change that. > Should I queue these for stable? There are some fixes to fixes here, > so AFAIK we need: > > 5273a191dca65a675dc0bcf3909e59c6933e2831 4.9+ > 04d36d748fac349b068ef621611f454010054c58 4.19+ > f71dbf2fb28489a79bde0dca1c8adfb9cdb20a6b 4.9+ > fac20b9e738523fc884ee3ea5be360a321cd8bad 4.19+ Yes, please. DaveM asked me not to put stable tags in my net patches, IIRC, as his scripts do that automagically. David
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:38:54 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > Should I queue these for stable? There are some fixes to fixes here, > > so AFAIK we need: > > > > 5273a191dca65a675dc0bcf3909e59c6933e2831 4.9+ > > 04d36d748fac349b068ef621611f454010054c58 4.19+ > > f71dbf2fb28489a79bde0dca1c8adfb9cdb20a6b 4.9+ > > fac20b9e738523fc884ee3ea5be360a321cd8bad 4.19+ > > Yes, please. DaveM asked me not to put stable tags in my net patches, IIRC, > as his scripts do that automagically. Yup, I'll queue these up.