From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932787AbbI1Kv0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:51:26 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:37985 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932297AbbI1KvY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:51:24 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:51:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, luto@kernel.org, dvlasenk@redhat.com,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: fix out-of-bounds in get_wchan()
Message-ID: <20150928105122.GD3556@pd.tnic>
References: <1443430839-13225-1-git-send-email-dvyukov@google.com>
 <20150928093741.GA3556@pd.tnic>
 <CACT4Y+b76-K4nGo3GhVUUTNqB8nXzy4UZd4mMhmy5p1E+1ewNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150928102314.GB3556@pd.tnic>
 <CACT4Y+ZszHhFr7VTShCGMigOssihC92x1Z87=AxVBhEMmojFdw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+ZszHhFr7VTShCGMigOssihC92x1Z87=AxVBhEMmojFdw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:33:09PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> I have not checked, but I would expect that it is caller's
> responsibility.

Looks like it: proc, for example, does get_pid_task()->get_task_struct().

> There is generally no way to magically resurrect a
> pointer to a freed object passed in.

Right.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.