From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794677617; b=ZakIzZOAGyBK6MaqubfOcQy9QVyREHpBxyEe7PWHhy8j/r+F4oCL9cXHQF3KeYHJXLU6 EJLJegSYCH/VgyHhK677CY2kFf9gKlwKFRbBo2ZO4pOMDo0JfnN0NDUJvQEHalmJSv70c SkVdJYlcz3R8KyLIMo4dwMx2o4b6L+0QbaWBs3nrADKjuRS2YlhmY67iEKkpbVcvP7yqL t25+6JsDPXRpuru+8rKQ74YJRNBs8HM1jR2d+K/RZD16wwUmDUQS3/Y3CPMi5i+2ABFxi 9j1474Zow4r7Vv/DOGQb53PKOolyCN0AJD+/X5RIJkPq1ttPZIGwcTyFAgf0ypjj/Vw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794677617; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=VMjHeqkDRZE8dhy1hqRxTcDbSg1/bFbdQHaCHWsCozw=; b=0VklDvVTSy/LTbn37vmRZ31MbXaRRNItZCRLp9p7EKJfZcXzzauFrlWNWS66EpVq9QJS dFpCHfj+arCxzI9jBgIYcJk9ftr/m1fluQjsqYkpmTFzS5ioMZGg5R8e2sWkKGXJ0Adaq 5MjxK114cKE42B9ctT38NAfLw54i5PCcwt4PG1vZMtoZJ+cdZS120J3l5ePeDaE3/YX2g 9PrLcuOLxzESYCSkfi9VWdnmWzluztbkH/504FAQOxT8i9zdYDqndZUoUOUj/Hrcy8oAT ffBtZrdedGd2vAX0x0rKIIGi2frIe4HS2Tyy47Zgs0CMibFyxFvzzU/yzeaGG1S45Qw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=O19UBMrA; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D52D606A327; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 17:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=O19UBMrA Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3003A1F000C4; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 17:33:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794677617; bh=VMjHeqkDRZE8dhy1hqRxTcDbSg1/bFbdQHaCHWsCozw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=O19UBMrAXkSoqPs2prqibtCjHeT2ADtnsEqYx5CwN2Oz2VgZ9KcZRHMdcNCOcdfgl ORgZffaPijVySmPmQ6Je7Leyt7vh8GDA4rqz4FakWw97AhfpzssLYjZupsgOQAZAAw rrsUb2D6bnRPbSgcp7Mrwd6/5MT3vLYsIs/m6OqPkVV7klRQMXXJtEbufp2JLV7xVv TH2lNKIi9KMJpq7YRLpHUuP6l7p+aka9NtHOoaViwLbdxP37X/QZV3kntbmTcqYy8e 13Nj1AwEP17GmyWaTaNOEZA9ckwfLaHcaYngHulFXkulfjPwlvUstfQTsIBdPOscFI Lz6Ogx5In6jug== Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2026 17:33:32 +0000 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/execmem: check execmem_restore_rox() failure in execmem_cache_free() Message-ID: References: <20261115004704544fuMEkcx0F4A1sNBAzz46-@zte.com.cn> X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261115004704544fuMEkcx0F4A1sNBAzz46-@zte.com.cn> On Sun, Nov 15, 2026 at 12:47:04AM +0800, shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn wrote: > From: Shao Mingyin > > mm/execmem: check execmem_restore_rox() failure in execmem_cache_free() > > __execmem_cache_free() checks execmem_force_rw(), but ignores the > matching execmem_restore_rox() result before adding the block to the > free ROX cache. A failed restore can leave permissions only partially > updated, so a later cache allocation can return memory that is not ROX. > The cache allocation path does not reapply permissions. > > Check the restore result and return the error. The existing callers keep > failed frees pending and retry them through delayed work. This prevents > a block whose ROX restoration failed from entering the free cache, and > matches the error handling in execmem_vmalloc_rox(). > > Fixes: 187fd8521dd8 ("execmem: rework execmem_cache_free()") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.17 > Signed-off-by: Shao Mingyin NAK. this is generated by some AI slopper's script, spamming the kernel. The patches I looked at were wrong/broken, so no to anything from this person. They've sent 300 mails in under four weeks spanniing: ata, scsi, target, ufs, nvme/nvmet, ubifs, ublk, zloop, dm, md, mmc, virtio-blk, mfd, gpio, pwm, spi, PCI, ASoC, ACPI, net, vfs mount, block partitions, and now mm. and 17 series across 7 subsystems over the past 23 hours. We need a way to ban emails from people like this... -- Cheers, Lorenzo