Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m7E0xYgw012299 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:59:35 -0700 Received: from [134.14.55.78] (redback.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.55.78]) by larry.melbourne.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA04005; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:00:48 +1000 Message-ID: <48A38550.4030102@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:07:28 +1000 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Steigerwald CC: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: TAKE 985525 - Fix use after free in xfs_log_done(). References: <20080812044629.B2DE858C52A4@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <200808122253.57666.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (sfid-20080812_225744_709880_4EB8AD8F) <200808131115.03350.Martin@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <200808131115.03350.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 17525 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: lachlan@sgi.com Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag 12 August 2008 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: >> Am Dienstag 12 August 2008 schrieb Lachlan McIlroy: >>> Fix use after free in xfs_log_done(). >>> >>> The ticket allocation code got reworked in 2.6.26 and we now free >>> tickets whereas before we used to cache them so the use-after-free >>> went undetected. >> Is this intended to go to stable tree? >> >> How serious is this? I intend to update my laptops to 2.6.26. > > Nevermind, I just applied the patch. > Okay. We've only seen this bug once and I'm surprised it happened at all so I wouldn't consider it a serious problem.