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]

Date:   Sun, 21 Apr 2019 10:27:07 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
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 12:15:26PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Yes, one is V1 and the other is V2. Is it hard to understand V2 is to
> replace V1?

Well, looking at these two very different fixes, it made me think that
you don't really know what you're doing. So I went and did the Knuth's
version just so that I can analyze and understand the issue myself.

The final result ended up needing *both* the index fix *and* removed the
trailing noodling code after the loop which looked fishy at best and I
wanted it gone anyway.

So in the end:

1. your first fix was correct but incomplete

2. your second was replaced by a better version of the whole thing

So the final result is a lot cleaner and straight-forward. And it is
only 29 lines and I don't see a problem with it going to stable.

And I as author and maintainer of this code have very much the
prerogative to decide which way to go, TYVM. No matter how much you
passive-aggressively bitch. Thanks to your last mail, I won't have to
make this choice anymore.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.