This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 28/12/2013, at 12:15 pm, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/27/2013 06:05 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> Dave, Carlos, Andreas, >> >> Consider backporting fix [*] for BZ #15073 >> (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15073) to your >> respective release branches. >> >> The bug is present since 2.12, conditioned on ATOMIC_FASTBINS, which >> became unconditional default in 2.15. Therefore backporting to 2.12 >> and 2.14 is optional, but 2.15 onwards is very desirable. >> >> The patch applies cleanly to 2.15 onwards. >> >> The essence of the fix is to avoid "chunksize(old)" memory reference >> since OLD can be deallocated if !HAVE_LOCK. >> >> [*] 362b47fe09ca9a928d444c7e2f7992f7f61bfc3e >> >> Let me know if you have any questions or if the fix does not appear >> to be obvious/safe. > > So the way this works is that the responsibility for backporting > and testing the bacported patch falls to the developer making > the backport request. The branch maintainer is only responsible > for reviewing and ACK'ing or NACK'ing that request. > > Thus if there are interested parties in getting this fixed for > any non-trunk branches then those parties need to backport, test, > and submit the patch as usual for ACK'ing by the branch maintainer. Fair enough. I will backport and test the patch for 2.15 onwards. Do I have your ACK to commit to 2.15 and 2.16 provided there are no regressions? Patch is attached. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.kugelworks.com
Attachment:
0001-Fix-race-in-free-of-fastbin-chunk-BZ-15073.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |