linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/46] mtdpart: Propagate _get/put

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, 14 Dec 2016 22:12:42 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...il.com>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Walter <dwalter@...ma-star.at>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/46] mtdpart: Propagate _get/put_device()

Hi!

On 14.12.2016 22:09, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:24:46PM +0000, Karl Beldan wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Brian Norris
>> <computersforpeace@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:15:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:43:56 +0200
>>>> Daniel Walter <dwalter@...ma-star.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the master device has callbacks for _get/put_device()
>>>>> and this MTD has slaves a get_mtd_device() call on paritions
>>>>> will never issue the registered callbacks.
>>>>> Fix this by propagating _get/put_device() down.
>>>>
>>>> Brian, can we have this one queued for 4.9? I can't take it in my tree
>>>> if you want, but it's probably better if it's in the mtd tree.
>>>
>>> Applied this patch to l2-mtd.git
>>>
>>
>> I think this should also go into -stable.
> 
> Why? Do you have real use cases that are broken by this? I understand
> this is a problem, but I'm curious on how this satisfies the stable
> rules.
> 
> Also, note that this isn't a regression; it's been broken forever and
> apparently no one noticed. IMO that raises the bar a bit (but not
> impossibly so) for -stable.

Yes. AFAICT you can only trigger it using my "new" nandsim
which is not mainline so far.

Thanks,
//richard