linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: android: ion: check for kref overflow

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:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:56:57 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: android: ion: check for kref overflow

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Daniel Rosenberg wrote:
> On 08/30/2018 05:41 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:09:46PM -0700, Daniel Rosenberg wrote:
> > > This patch is against 4.9. It does not apply to master due to a large
> > > rework of ion in 4.12 which removed the affected functions altogther.
> > > 4c23cbff073f3b9b ("staging: android: ion: Remove import interface")
> > > 
> > > Userspace can cause the kref to handles to increment
> > > arbitrarily high. Ensure it does not overflow.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > I signed off on this?  Where?  When?  Are you sure?
> > 
> > greg k-h
> The sign off was on the 4.4.y version that I cherry-picked this from.

Ah that wasn't obvious at all.  What is that git commit id?  You need to
give us a hint as to what is going on when you do that :)

> There was a trivial conflict moving it to 4.9, but it did not modify
> any changed lines, so I hadn't thought that was worth noting on the
> patch. I apologise if leaving the signed-off-by was incorrect here.

Why did I only apply this to 4.4 and not 4.9 when the original patch was
submitted?  That seems odd.

thanks,

greg k-h