Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757884AbZA3Xqc (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:46:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753575AbZA3XqE (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:46:04 -0500 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33179 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757886AbZA3XqB (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:46:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:44:11 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Linus Torvalds , Maksim Yevmenkin , Lee Schermerhorn , linux-kernel , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , will@crowder-design.com, Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in mmap_region() when merging adjacent VM_LOCKED file segments Message-ID: <20090130234411.GB11628@suse.de> References: <1233259410.2315.75.camel@lts-notebook> <20090130055639.GA30950@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2077 Lines: 48 On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:40:24PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > Which version was the "non-cleanup" version that should be added to the > > > stable trees? > > > > There were two different versions: > > > > From: Andrew Morton > > Subject: Re: possible bug in mmap_region() in linux-2.6.28 kernel > > Message-Id: <20090128134350.034ac6a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > > > From: Lee Schermerhorn > > Subject: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in mmap_region() when merging adjacent VM_LOCKED file segments > > Message-Id: <1233259410.2315.75.camel@lts-notebook> > > > > and I'm actually not at all sure which one should go into stable (or if we > > should just pick the same one that went into mainline). > > > ... > > > > But none of the above really changes the fact that the patch I committed > > to mainline was really quite fundamentally more invasive than either of > > the "simple" patches. All three patches are small, with mine arguably the > > smallest of the lot, but mine actually changed semantics, while Andrew's > > and Lee's patch literally only fix the invalid pointer use. > > > > I'll leave it to others to decide which one goes into -stable. I > > personally don't really think it matters. I argue above that mine is > > pretty safe and thus perfectly fine even for -stable, but reality has a > > habit of sometimes disagreeing with me. Dang. > > I'd say one of the non-cleanup versions for -stable > (but I've not compared them to see which one is better). Ok, based on both of your comments about this, and the fact that the in-tree one did break something, I'll go look at Andrew and Lee's versions and pick one of them for -stable. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/