linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch alignment

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:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:01:39 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch
 alignment

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2019-09-03 6:23 p.m., Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
>> >
>> > [ Upstream commit 89f23b6efef554766177bf51aa754bce14c3e7da ]
>>
>> Hold your horses!
>>
>> This commit and c4a32b266da7bb702e60381ca0c35eaddbc89a6c had to be
>> reverted, as they caused regressions. See commits
>> 25ec429e86bb790e40387a550f0501d0ac55a47c &
>> 92b0730eaf2d549fdfb10ecc8b71f34b9f472c12 .
>>
>>
>> This isn't bolstering confidence in how these patches are selected...
>
>The patch _itself_ said to be backported to the stable trees from 4.2
>and newer.  Why wouldn't we be confident in doing this?
>
>If the patch doesn't want to be backported, then do not add the cc:
>stable line to it...

This patch was picked because it has a stable tag, which you presumably
saw as your Reviewed-by tag is in the patch. This is why it was
backported; it doesn't take AI to backport patches tagged for stable...

The revert of this patch, however:

 1. Didn't have a stable tag.
 2. Didn't have a "Fixes:" tag.
 3. Didn't have the usual "the reverts commit ..." string added by git
 when one does a revert.

Which is why we still kick patches for review, even though they had a
stable tag, just so people could take a look and confirm we're not
missing anything - like we did here.

I'm not sure what you expected me to do differently here.

--
Thanks,
Sasha