From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF332746E; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 05:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736488702; cv=none; b=jfych3EHEmzNa/GMzM7hv6th30GFYBAz9y0s2+elgu2+7fTSK1JaqZryjUIZaL9xvM8Z02rVrmk5o4pPakij105V9Aoqwfbt/Ac9yB1liyG6gpN81ddVPKNQzrDMslkXDkzWPFkxjfoJKpsMkpPNP2+pKS/KQv+dpAdsXFYBkF4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736488702; c=relaxed/simple; bh=topItqtKknIOfGfDvD6hJmVGF0nqfjtCb0Tg+rQ6JRk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=i+++UG4nEXEI7nVZfBLHhenKrS1xkxQ3MfMSBQZC8KQU4nouGKKBB8P+qodbpehHeoBI9ep6n67ytQsAMRss0z1wCiKvzWBl9C9yzLE70/efkzu0xiuJrPLuj7H/ENjdmmibDSsDJWh4c786lWadx2tTGzJD4pFr5QKsmbRNyrg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=ODmweQsa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="ODmweQsa" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6332C4CED6; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 05:58:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1736488701; bh=topItqtKknIOfGfDvD6hJmVGF0nqfjtCb0Tg+rQ6JRk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ODmweQsa5xleKsvn9A5Z9z+glAaSP0+FygCatONTeLkcZmLIExVbAgVtYw7lz+Q4o 55FLUgYRPq7sYLXvqcGqjpCoj/2iwK93kd449g26NJu8sfn03rfKtwblI5aHTfnPAL Um/zgoKn/U6zTWG22jS1uOg6BFWeScl+RUw5IaTw= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:57:30 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Dominique Martinet Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Kairui Song , Desheng Wu , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 5.15 6.1] zram: check comp is non-NULL before calling comp_destroy Message-ID: <2025011052-backpedal-coat-2fec@gregkh> References: <20250107071604.190497-1-dominique.martinet@atmark-techno.com> <2025010929-nutmeg-lustiness-f433@gregkh> <2025010916-janitor-matching-0136@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 11:23:51AM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:09:38AM +0100: > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > Before 74363ec674cb ("zram: fix uninitialized ZRAM not releasing backing > > > > device") that was indeed not a problem so I confirm this is a > > > > regression, even if it is unlikely. > > > > It doesn't look exploitable by unprivileged users anyway so I don't have > > > > any opinion on whether the patches should be held until upstream picks > > > > this latest fix up as well either. > > > > > > Looks like Sasha just dropped the offending commit from the 5.10 and > > > 5.15 queues (but forgot to drop some dep-of patches, I'll go fix that > > > up), so I'll also drop the patch from the 6.1.y queue as well to keep > > > things in sync. > > > > > > If you all want this change to be in 6.1.y (or any other tree), can you > > > provide a working backport, with this patch merged into it? > > > > Oops, nope, this was already in a 6.1.y release, so I'll go apply this > > patch there now. Sorry for the noise... > > Thank you! I hadn't even noticed the patch had made it to 6.1.122 > earlier, good catch. > > So to recap: > - 6.1 is now covered; > - for 5.15/5.10, you suggested squashing this prereq directly into the > 74363ec674cb ("zram: fix uninitialized ZRAM not releasing backing > device") backport ; given the patch got merged to 6.1 as is does it > still make sense? > I can resend both patches together as a set if it's become more > preferable. > (... Perhaps adding a tag like [ v6.1 tree commit xyz123 ] even if I > doubt it's standard) > - (for completeness I checked 5.4, 74363ec674cb doesn't apply so I won't > bother) A patch set is fine, as that would match what 6.1.y has now. thanks, greg k-h