MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJuCfpGiktjjPZYPp8LNtbmvYhkxh_icEWXOVgsq9qeq+w6s+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230214181335.3946674-1-kamatam@amazon.com> <Y+vZLQXlkf/7XvVB@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y+vZLQXlkf/7XvVB@gmail.com>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:13:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFpTGbPnJBh-MT3nat0t=HVr2ZWLELDAYtQ+TYhjg6XHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/psi: fix use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue()
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Munehisa Kamata <kamatam@amazon.com>, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        hdanton@sina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        mengcc@amazon.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:55 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:13:35AM -0800, Munehisa Kamata wrote:
> > Using wake_up_pollfree() here might be less than ideal, but it also is not
> > fully contradicting the comment at commit 42288cb44c4b ("wait: add
> > wake_up_pollfree()") since the waitqueue's lifetime is not tied to file's
> > one and can be considered as another special case.
>
> If that comment is outdated now, then please update the comment too.  We can do
> better than "not fully contradicting".

Agree. I don't see it contradicting that comment.

>
> - Eric