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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:11:13 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
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

Hi Jens,

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:38:26PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.

Understood.

> 
> >> 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.

Yeb. If so, now that I think about it, it would be better to handle
it via Andrew's tree because Andrew have been handled zram's patches
and I have several pending patches based on it.
So, I will send new patchset with it to Andrew.

Thanks!