linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix find_next_zero

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:15:04 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc:	James Jones <jajones@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix find_next_zero_bit and related assembly

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, James Jones wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 24 November 2010 11:00:12 am Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > On 11/23/2010 03:28 PM, James Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 13:26:47 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, James Jones wrote:
> > > > >>> The find_next_bit, find_first_bit, find_next_zero_bit
> > > > >>> and find_first_zero_bit functions were not properly
> > > > >>> clamping to the maxbit argument at the bit level. They
> > > > >>> were instead only checking maxbit at the byte level.
> > > > >>> To fix this, add a compare and a conditional move
> > > > >>> instruction to the end of the common bit-within-the-
> > > > >>> byte code used by all the functions and be sure not to
> > > > >>> clobber the maxbit argument before it is used.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajones@...dia.com>
> > > > >>> Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Please send to RMK's patch system.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for the review.  It's already in the patch system, but I updated
> > > > > the entry to include your reviewed-by line.
> > > > 
> > > > Should this be sent to the stable tree too?
> > > 
> > > It could, yes.  This is hardly an urgent fix though, as the bug has been
> > > there virtually forever.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Nicolas
> > 
> > While ancient, it does cause per-cpu allocations to fail in some situations, 
> > which generally causes panics.
> 
> That would be a good justification for the stable tree then.

And the best way to do that is _not_ to send it to stable@...nel.org,
but when you submit the patch to the patch system, add a line in
the sign-off area:

CC: <stable@...nel.org>

and when it goes into mainline (which is a requirement for stable
patches) the stable team will automatically pick it up - without anyone
needing to do any additional work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/