linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:13:51 +0000
From:   alexander.levin@...izon.com
To:     Josh Hunt <joshhunt00@...il.com>
CC:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to_pfn()

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:43:41AM -0800, Josh Hunt wrote:
>I just started noticing the AUTOSEL tags yesterday and I think that's
>a great idea to tag patches, but was there any thought to also putting
>something in the commit message this way they're easily identifiable
>in the git logs? I think it would be useful if there was some metadata
>in the commit message which identified that it was selected through
>some automated system. That way if I find a regression and it
>identifies one of these commits I can know that maybe it was chosen
>incorrectly, and also would allow me to alert the owner of the
>selection script to better help refine its selection process.
>Otherwise I'd have to track back through the mailing lists to see how
>it landed in the stable release.

It's possible, but I didn't want to add a bunch of clutter to the
commit message. Right now it's somewhat easy to track it back to
automatic selection because:

 1. I'm signed off on all of them, so I could chime in in the case
concerns/issues arise with a patch.
 2. They all have a corresponding review request email with the
AUTOSEL marker.

Keep in mind that what the automatic tools are doing is only
identifying whether a patch "looks like" a patch that should be in
a stable tree. They do not verify that it's appropriate for any of
the stable trees it ends up going to - that's still mostly manual
and all fuck ups are PEBCAK.

>Just a thought. Also, thank you for trying to improve the stable kernels!

Thanks Josh!

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha