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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:35:56 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: Add missing destroy_timer_on_stack()

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>> <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
>> > The PSCI checker suspend_test_thread() function (ie executed for the
>> > suspend test) requires an on-stack timer to carry out the test it
>> > executes; it sets it up through the setup_timer_on_stack() API.
>> >
>> > setup_timer_on_stack() requires its counterpart destroy_timer_on_stack()
>> > to be called when the timer is disposed of but the PSCI checker code is
>> > currently missing that call, leaving the timer object in an incosistent
>> > state when the PSCI checker stops the thread executing the suspend
>> > test.
>> >
>> > Add the missing destroy_timer_on_stack() call to fix the omission.
>> >
>> > Fixes: ea8b1c4a6019 ("drivers: psci: PSCI checker module")
>> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> > Reported-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>>
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>
>> You addressed the patch 'To: arm@...nel.org', but I'm not entirely
>> sure what to do with it, it would be nice to be a little more explicit whether
>> you want us to apply the patch directly or just review it, and which trees
>> you want it to get merged into.
>
> Yes, I was about to reply to you - I should have added some comments
> to the patch itself, apologies.

Applied to next/drivers now, thanks!

      Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists