Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Dec 2022 06:28:16 -0500 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.1 13/22] proc/vmcore: fix potential memory leak in vmcore_init() |
| |
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 04:32:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:27:14 -0500 Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote: > >> From: Jianglei Nie <niejianglei2021@163.com> >> >> [ Upstream commit 12b9d301ff73122aebd78548fa4c04ca69ed78fe ] >> >> Patch series "Some minor cleanup patches resent". >> >> The first three patches trivial clean up patches. >> >> And for the patch "kexec: replace crash_mem_range with range", I got a >> ibm-p9wr ppc64le system to test, it works well. >> >> This patch (of 4): >> >> elfcorehdr_alloc() allocates a memory chunk for elfcorehdr_addr with >> kzalloc(). If is_vmcore_usable() returns false, elfcorehdr_addr is a >> predefined value. If parse_crash_elf_headers() gets some error and >> returns a negetive value, the elfcorehdr_addr should be released with >> elfcorehdr_free(). > >This is exceedingly minor - a single memory leak per boot, under very >rare circumstances. > > >With every patch I merge I consider -stable. Often I'll discuss the >desirability of a backport with the author and with reviewers. Every >single patch. And then some damn script comes along and overrides that >quite careful decision. argh. > >Can we please do something like > > if (akpm && !cc:stable) > dont_backport()
Yup, I already had it set for 'akpm && mm/ && !cc:stable', happy to remove the 'mm/' restriction if you're doing the same for the rest of the patches you review.
>And even go further - if your script thinks it might be something we >should backport and if it didn't have cc:stable then contact the >author, reviewers and committers and ask them to reconsider before we >go and backport it. This approach will have the advantage of training >people to consider the backport more consistently.
This is what this mail is all about: I haven't queued up the patch yet, it gives folks week+ to review, and all it takes is a simple "no" for me to drop it.
>I'd (still) like to have a new patch tag like Not-For-Stable: or >cc:not-stable or something to tell your scripts "yes, we thought about >it and we decided no".
No objections on my part.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |