linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.15 118/124] signal/parisc: Document a conflict with SI

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

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:49:25 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable\@vger.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "linux-parisc\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.15 118/124] signal/parisc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE

Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com> writes:

> Hey Eric,
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20:21AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com> writes:
>>
>>What is the justification for backporting this and the other similar
>>Documentation commits?
>
> It was flagged as a bug fixing patch by a new process we're testing, and
> when I looked at it I thought that the commit message suggests it fixes
> an ABI issue.

Unfortunately they just reveal an ABI issue.  I believe there are some
fixes coming but given that the issues are a decade old in many cases
actually fixing these things must be approach with care so as not to
create regressions.

>>These commits just introduce a define _FIXME with value of 0, to
>>document that the userspace ABI was handled incorrectly long ago.
>>
>>These commits do not fix anything.  Thes commits do not change anything
>>except a little how they are handled in siginfo_layout.  And I don't see
>>the changes that introduce siginfo_layout in kernel/signal.c being
>>backported.
>>
>>Further these commits don't even have a fixes tag so I am curious
>>what is triggering them for backport.
>
> We're testing out a new mechanism where we train a neural network to
> detect bug fixing patches and flag them for manual review. We're working
> on a FAQ + more detailed information right now.

The neural network did seem to pick up on something that is worth
looking at.

Eric