Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200618190807.GA20699@nautica> <20200620201456.14304-1-alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
 <20200621084512.GA720@nautica>
In-Reply-To: <20200621084512.GA720@nautica>
From:   Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 Jun 2020 13:30:20 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJ1xhMWe6qN9RcpmTkJVRkCs+5F=_JtdwsYuFfM7ZckwEkubhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     lucho@ionkov.net, ericvh@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:45 AM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@codewreck.org> wrote:
>
> Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2020:
> > Use (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as
> > suggested in the email referenced below.
>
> Thanks for v2! Patch itself looks good to me.
>
> I always add another `Link:` tag to the last version of the patch at the
> time of applying, so the message might be a bit confusing.
> Feel free to keep the link to the previous discussion but I'd rather
> just repeat a bit more of what we discussed (e.g. fix rcu not being
> dereferenced cleanly by using the task helpers as suggested) rather than
> just link to the thread
>
> Sorry for nitpicking but I think commit messages are important and it's
> better if they're understandable out of context, even if you give a link
> for further details for curious readers, it helps being able to just
> skim through git log.
>
>
> Either way I'll include the patch in my test run today or tomorrow, had
> promised it for a while...
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Dominique

Hi Dominique,

Thanks for your feedback.
Shall I simply resend the v2 patch with the commit message reworded as
you suggested, or should I make it a v3 patch instead?

One other thing I wanted to clarify is I got a message from kernel
test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org/thread/TMTLPYU6A522JH2VCN3PNZVAP6EE5MDF/,
saying that on parisc my patch resulted in __lock_task_sighand being
undefined during modpost'ing.
I've noticed similar messages about other people's patches on the
linux-kernel mailing list with the responses stating that the issue
was at the compilation site rather than with the patch itself.
As far as I understand, that is the case with my patch also. So no
further action on that is required of me, is it?
Thanks.