linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drbd: Fix kernel

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:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 09:55:02 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, wolfgang.glas@...g.at,
        christoph.lechleitner@...g.at, philipp.reisner@...bit.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drbd: Fix kernel_sendmsg() usage

On 11/09/2016 08:32 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> This should go into 4.9,
>>>> and into all stable branches since and including v4.0,
>>>> which is the first to contain the exposing change.
>>>>
>>>> It is correct for all stable branches older than that as well
>>>> (which contain the DRBD driver; which is 2.6.33 and up).
>>>>
>>>> It requires a small "conflict" resolution for v4.4 and earlier, with v4.5
>>>> we dropped the comment block immediately preceding the kernel_sendmsg().
>>>>
>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
>>>> Cc: christoph.lechleitner@...g.at
>>>> Cc: wolfgang.glas@...g.at
>>>> Reported-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleitner@...g.at>
>>>> Tested-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleitner@...g.at>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
>>>
>>> Changing my patch is perfectly fine, but please clearly state it.
>>> I.e. by adding something like that before your S-o-b.
>>> [Lars: Massaged patch to match my personal taste...]
>>
>
>> Lars, are you sending a new one? If you do, add the stable tag as well.
>
> So my "change" against his original patch was
> - rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, size - sent);
> + rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, iov.iov_len);
> to make it "more obviously correct" from looking just at the one line
> without even having to read the context.  And a more verbose commit message.

I'm fine with you making that change, I do that too sometimes for
patches. But Richard is absolutely right in that you need to make a note
of that. It's no longer the patch he signed off on, so it needs to
reflect that.

> Should I sent two patches, one that applies to 4.5 and later,
> and one that applies to 2.6.33 ... 4.4, or are you or stable
> willing to resolve the trivial "missing comment block" conflict yourself?

Since it's a trivial one liner, let's just do one for the current series
and the stable folks should be able to do that one. If not, they will
let us know.

-- 
Jens Axboe