linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: potential NULL dereference

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]

Message-ID: <20160716004825.GA10855@kroah.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:48:25 +0900
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: potential NULL dereference

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:32:09PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> + stable
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Patch looks good, but one question.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:06:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > We check for NULL but then dereference "info->mtd" on the next line.
> > 
> > Fixes: 72169755cf36 ('mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: show parent device in sysfs')
> 
> What am I supposed to do about tags like this? It appears that the
> -stable folks have started taking patches with a 'Fixes' tag alone [0],
> even though that's not mentioned in [1]. I ask because I strongly
> suspect this patch doesn't fit the rules in [1] -- it quite likely has
> only been compile tested; and it qualifies quite well as violating
> bullet 4:
> 
> """
>  - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
>    problem..." type thing).
> """
> 
> So, I'd like to keep the tag, but I'd like to avoid having to NAK it in
> the stable review process. (And really, I often don't care enough to
> even do that. I believe there's a very low chance that something like
> this would cause additional problems more than the original bug.)

Only sometimes will I pick up something that only has a fixes: tag in
it, not all the time, I try to review the patch to see if it does match
the rules or not.

But, fixing an oops is a good thing, I'm sure you can figure out how to
trigger it otherwise you would not be taking such a patch as it would be
not be needed :)

thanks,

greg k-h