linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 033/110] bfs: add sanity check at bfs_fill

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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:55:20 +0000
From:   Tigran Aivazian <aivazian.tigran@...il.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzbot <syzbot+71c6b5d68e91149fc8a4@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 033/110] bfs: add sanity check at bfs_fill_super()

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:07, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:23:00PM +0000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Yes, of course I object to it.
> I can not apply a patch to the stable trees that are not in Linus's tree
> first.  So there's nothing I can do here with this.

Ok, we can wait until my patch propagates into Linus' tree, but I
would have thought it would be a waste of your time to apply a patch
which is waiting to be inevitably superseded by a different one. I can
see there are 238 PRs at Linus' tree on github and I am very glad that
I looked into one of them --- it contained a long comment explaining
that I should NOT do what I was just about to do, i.e. make a PR
against Linus' tree! :)

And, besides, in the email conversation Linus approved my version of
the patch anyway.

Kind regards,
Tigran