linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses

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, 30 Mar 2017 19:38:26 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Sergey Senozhatsky" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        <yizhan@...hat.com>,
        "Linux Block Layer Mailinglist" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailinglist" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
 bounds accesses

On 03/30/2017 05:45 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 03/30/2017 09:08 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> It seems you miss this.
>>> Could you handle this?
>>
>> I can, but I'm a little confused. The comment talks about replacing
>> the one I merged with this one, I can't do that. I'm assuming you
>> are talking about this commit:
> 
> Right.
> 
>>
>> commit 0bc315381fe9ed9fb91db8b0e82171b645ac008f
>> Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
>> Date:   Mon Mar 6 11:23:35 2017 +0100
>>
>>     zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses
>>
>> which is in mainline. The patch still applies, though.
> 
> You mean it's already in mainline so you cannot replace but can revert.
> Right?
> If so, please revert it and merge this one.

Let's please fold it into the other patch. That's cleaner and it makes
logical sense.

>> Do we really REALLY need this for 4.11, or can we queue for 4.12 and
>> mark it stable?
> 
> Not urgent because one in mainline fixes the problem so I'm okay
> with 4.12 but I don't want mark it as -stable.

OK good, please resend with the two-line revert in your current
patch, and I'll get it queued up for 4.12.

-- 
Jens Axboe