On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 10:01 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > > On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 14:10 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > On 29/03/16 00:42, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > I noticed this when doing radix support and have a variant posted at > > > > > > > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-March/141036.html > > > > > > I'm happy for this to be fixed in your radix series. > > > > I'm not :) > > > > This needs a stand-alone fix that we can backport. > > It is done as an independent patch > > http://mid.gmane.org/1460182444-2468-2-git-send-email-aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Sure, but that's still not a *fix*. A fix is a single commit, preferably with a subject that literally contains the word "fix" or "bug", which fixes just the bug and nothing else. It should also have a Fixes: line, if possible, and a Cc stable if appropriate. It should also describe clearly what the bug is, why it's serious or just annoying or whatever. In this case it *looks* like we have a giant hole in the mm handling for CAPI contexts, which would let userspace create mappings of kernel memory with _PAGE_USER set. I think I agree with Ian that in fact that's not true, but it's not clear from the diff that is the case. So I'd really like someone to write a good commit message demonstrating that we understand what the bug is and why it's not a big deal, despite the patch looking scary at first glance. </grumpy> :) cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
