Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:44:00 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
Cc:     "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@siemens.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Russ Gorby <russ.gorby@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "lvc-project@linuxtesting.org" <lvc-project@linuxtesting.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] tty: n_gsm: fix tty registration before control
 channel open
Message-ID: <2023121232-magenta-recall-2cec@gregkh>
References: <20231212111431.4064760-1-Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231212111431.4064760-1-Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:17:21AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> Syzkaller reports memory leak issue at gsmld_attach_gsm() in
> 5.10 stable releases. The reproducer injects the memory allocation
> errors to tty_register_device(); as a result, tty_kref_get() isn't called
> after this error, which leads to tty_struct leak.
> The issue has been fixed by the following patches that can be cleanly
> applied to the 5.10 branch.
> 
> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
> (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller

Do you actually have any hardware for this protocol running on the
5.10.y kernel?  How was this tested?  Why was just this specific set of
patches picked to be backported?

thanks,

greg k-h