linux-kernel - Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata

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]

Message-ID: <1471859215.2764.24.camel@opteya.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:46:55 +0200
From:   Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata_cleared()

Hi,

Le dimanche 21 août 2016 à 22:15 +0200, SF Markus Elfring a écrit :
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Don't introduce a defect in patch 1 and correct
> > > > that introduced defect in patch 2.
> > > Which detail do you not like here?
> > 
> > See above.
> 
> This feedback is not clearer.
> 

It's clear enough: your second patch fixes an issue you introduced in
your first patch by removing the code which made use of the ret
initialization value:

-       if (copy_from_user(buf, p, len))
-               goto free;

> I find that the two update steps should work in principle,
> shouldn't they?
> 

It would be better to squash them here.

Regards.

-- 
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA