linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171207134609.6a3e5424@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:46:09 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter
 tree

Hi Jann,

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:48:14 +0100 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't tell if the strlen test from the former is still needed, so I
> > just used the vfs tree version for now.  
> 
> Yeah, both of the checks from the netfilter tree are still necessary
> independent of the commit from the vfs tree.

Rats.  I will see what I can do about that.

> > I fixed it up (see below)  
> 
> Did you mean to paste in the fixed-up patch below this message?

Ah, well actually the diff ended up empty (since I used one side of the
conflicting part).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell