From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754220Ab2JUQZ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:25:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:47931 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753376Ab2JUQZz (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:25:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:26:18 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Ben Hutchings Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Stanislav Kinsbursky , Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [ 02/37] lockd: use rpc clients cl_nodename for id encoding Message-ID: <20121021162618.GB25856@kroah.com> References: <20121019031302.789593147@linuxfoundation.org> <20121019031303.167008948@linuxfoundation.org> <20121019231518.GE13292@decadent.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121019231518.GE13292@decadent.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:15:18AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:25PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Stanislav Kinsbursky > > > > commit 303a7ce92064c285a04c870f2dc0192fdb2968cb upstream. > > > > Taking hostname from uts namespace if not safe, because this cuold be > > performind during umount operation on child reaper death. And in this case > > current->nsproxy is NULL already. > > In this case (3.0.y) you haven't included the following change > (commit cb7323fffa85 'lockd: create and use per-net NSM RPC clients on > MON/UNMON requests') that makes lockd actually use cl_nodename. I > think this patch alone won't fix the bug, as nsm_args::nodename can > end up pointing to freed memory. > > (I also wonder whether clients should really be per-net or per UTS > namespace, and whether those should be orthogonal namespaces at all.) Hm, Trond, should I also include the other commit above in the next 3.0-stable release? Or should this one be dropped? thanks, greg k-h