From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] [v4.9.y] coredump: fix race condition between mmget_not_zero()/get_task_mm() and core dumping Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:21:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20190624202150.GC3881@sasha-vm> References: <1561410186-3919-1-git-send-email-akaher@vmware.com> <1561410186-3919-4-git-send-email-akaher@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1561410186-3919-4-git-send-email-akaher@vmware.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ajay Kaher Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, jannh@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, jgg@mellanox.com, mhocko@suse.com, jglisse@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, riandrews@android.com, arve@android.com, yishaih@mellanox.com, dledford@redhat.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, hal.rosenstock@gmail.com, matanb@mellanox.com, leonro@mellanox.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, srivatsab@vmware.com, amakhalov@vmware.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 02:33:06AM +0530, Ajay Kaher wrote: >coredump: fix race condition between mmget_not_zero()/get_task_mm() >and core dumping > >[PATCH v4 1/3]: >Backporting of commit 04f5866e41fb70690e28397487d8bd8eea7d712a upstream. > >[PATCH v4 2/3]: >Extension of commit 04f5866e41fb to fix the race condition between >get_task_mm() and core dumping for IB->mlx4 and IB->mlx5 drivers. > >[PATCH v4 3/3] >Backporting of commit 59ea6d06cfa9247b586a695c21f94afa7183af74 upstream. > >[diff from v3]: >- added [PATCH v4 3/3] Why do all the patches have the same subject line? I guess it's correct for the first one, but can you explain what's up with #2 and #3? If the second one isn't upstream, please explain in detail why not and how 4.9 differs from upstream so that it requires a custom backport. The third one just looks like a different patch altogether with a wrong subject line?