linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] UBI: Coverity-inspired fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:04:42 -0800
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] UBI: Coverity-inspired fixes

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:33:14AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Am 28.02.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Brian Norris:
> > Except for the last one, these were inspired by Coverity Scan results.
> > 
> > These fixes have barely been tested, but they are pretty straightforward
> > logically. As they've been sitting in my dust pile too long, I thought I'd at
> > least get them out there.
> > 
> > Brian Norris (5):
> >   UBI: account for bitflips in both the VID header and data
> >   UBI: fix out of bounds write
> >   UBI: initialize LEB number variable
> >   UBI: fix check for "too many bytes"
> >   UBI: align comment for readability
> 
> Nice work!
> I'll test them later today.
> Just a quick question, no patch has a stable tag, is this by design?
> From a first look most of them look like stable material.

Two reasons:

 1. I hadn't tested them heavily, and I definitely didn't try to target
 their codepaths much.

 2. Given #1 and the fact that these were just found by static analysis,
 I don't think they pass this test from
 Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt:

 " - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
    problem..." type thing)."

So, I expected they would only be sent to stable if somebody (perhaps
me) is able to trigger something real, or at least gets some significant
testing on them.

Maybe this is a case where you send the fixes, and then send the commit
IDs to Greg after they have been proven stable and/or can be exploited
in some way through testing. (Option 2 in the updated
stable_kernel_rules.txt.)

But really, it's your/Artem's call.

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/