linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: __of_detach_node()

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, 18 Dec 2018 14:01:32 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        tlfalcon@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, minkim@...ibm.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: __of_detach_node() - remove node from phandle cache

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:57 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/17/18 2:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > frowand.list@...il.com writes:
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
> >>
> >> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
> >> the phandle cache.  Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
> >> will incorrectly find the stale entry.  Remove the node from the
> >> cache.
> >>
> >> Add paranoia checks in of_find_node_by_phandle() as a second level
> >> of defense (do not return cached node if detached, do not add node
> >> to cache if detached).
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > Similarly here can we add:
> >
> > Fixes: 0b3ce78e90fc ("of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()")
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v4.17+
>
> Nope, 0b3ce78e90fc does not belong in stable (it is a feature, not a bug
> fix).  So the bug will not be in stable.

0b3ce78e90fc landed in v4.17, so Michael's line above is correct.
Annotating it with 4.17 only saves Greg from trying and then emailing
us to backport this patch as it wouldn't apply.

Rob