Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Alexander Kapshuk
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:56 PM Dominique Martinet wrote: > > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020: > > Fix rcu not being dereferenced cleanly by using the task > > helpers (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and > > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a val

Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Dominique Martinet
Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020: > Fix rcu not being dereferenced cleanly by using the task > helpers (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as > suggested in the email referenced below. Ack. I'll t

[PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Alexander Kapshuk
Fix rcu not being dereferenced cleanly by using the task helpers (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as suggested in the email referenced below. Signed-off-by: Alexander Kapshuk Link: https://lore.kernel.org/l

Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Alexander Kapshuk
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 1:57 PM Dominique Martinet wrote: > > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020: > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Shall I simply resend the v2 patch with the commit message reworded as > > you suggested, or should I make it a v3 patch instead? > > Yes please resend the

Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Dominique Martinet
Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020: > Thanks for your feedback. > Shall I simply resend the v2 patch with the commit message reworded as > you suggested, or should I make it a v3 patch instead? Yes please resend the same commit reworded. v2 or v3 doesn't matter much, the [PATCH whatever]

Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Alexander Kapshuk
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:45 AM Dominique Martinet wrote: > > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2020: > > Use (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and > > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as > > suggested in the email referenced below. > > T

Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-21 Thread Dominique Martinet
Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2020: > Use (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as > suggested in the email referenced below. Thanks for v2! Patch itself looks good to me. I always add another `Link:

[PATCH] net/9p: Validate current->sighand in client.c

2020-06-20 Thread Alexander Kapshuk
Use (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as suggested in the email referenced below. Signed-off-by: Alexander Kapshuk Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200618190807.GA20699@nautica/ --- net/9p/client.c | 18