linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown pointer specifiers

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:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:41:55 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown
 pointer specifiers

On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2018-04-07 17:26:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:

> > This change collides with my patch series. Can you elaborate what
> > your
> > thoughts are about my patches? Are you going incorporate them to
> > your
> > series? Should I send them independently?
> 
> Good question. I think that the best solution will be that I go
> over your patchset and just add all valid ones into printk.git
> for-4.18.

I think about 1-7 and 9 that can go as is before your changes.
And patch 8 postpone

>  Then I will base v5 of this patchset on top of it.

I'm going for vacation tomorrow. Can you just take them into your series
or apply to your tree?

> I should have done this earlier. But I did not expect that long
> way for the access-check stuff. We originally planned to
> do the access check first, see
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1520000254.10722.389.camel@linux.intel.com

Yeah, I didn't consider that your one patch became a series...

> But the access check patchset still need some love, so it makes
> sense to switch the order.

I agree.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy