On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 02:30:46AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > First one is a panic I ran into while testing the second > one where we got several syzkaller reports. Series here > fixes both. > > Thanks!
Applied, thanks. The second patch looks dubious to me though. Nothing in the kernel tree checks the return value of set_memory_ro() and my understanding that it can fail only when part of huge page is being marked and pages have to be split. In bpf case I don't think it's ever the case, so the patch is silencing purely theoretical syzbot splat that can happen with artificial error injection. I bet we're still going to see this splat in set_memory_rw. imo the better fix would have been to drop WARN_ON from both.
