linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ras: fix an off-by-one error in __find

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]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWedOfJLSG1zzaEqRY05GO2jnODWT8mQVAiWSsk3umQUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:15:26 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ras: fix an off-by-one error in __find_elem()

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:04 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:25:43AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > If you want to go that far, you can choose to use lib/bsearch.c too in
> > case you want to reinvent the wheel.
>
> Well, that doesn't give me the @to functionality which points to the
> slot where the new element should be inserted, when the search was
> unsuccessful.

No one stops you from adding it, as you are going far you can always
go further. :)


>
> > What's your point here?
>
> My point is to fix it properly. Obviously.

Of course, no one can stop you from rewriting the whole ras code by
doing it properly.


>
> > You know my fix is targeted for -stable,
>
> Well, first you sent me this:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416012001.5338-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com
>
> then this:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416213351.28999-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com


Yes, one is V1 and the other is V2. Is it hard to understand V2 is to replace
V1?


>
> Tony liked this second version more and if you look at the final result of mine:


Sorry, I have no reason to look into a 83-line change.


> it has basically *both*: the correct [min:max] range *and* the return of
> ithe ndex when found. But the algorithm this time is the correct one.

I don't review it, so I don't know. Feel free to believe you are correct here,
until someone finds a bug later.


>
> > I doubt your 83-line change could fit for -stable.
>
> My 83-line change has debug output only for experimentation. It will,
> *of* *course* be removed before committing it upstream. That's why I
> called it "a conglomerate patch" and I said "It has some debug output
> for easier debugging, that will be removed in the final version, of
> course." I guess you didn't read that either.

Why should I read a debugging patch?


>
> And the sanity_check() piece will be a separate patch, of course.
>
> In the end the diffstat will be 30-40 lines max.
>
> > Feel free to drop my patch to favor yours. I am really tired.
>
> Suit yourself. Thanks for the reporting.

There is no bug here, your code is perfect. :) Sorry for wasting
your time to believe this it is bug, it is not. :-)

Thanks.