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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 3 May 2020 09:47:25 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
To:     Richard Yeh <>
Cc:     Rob Springer <>,
        Todd Poynor <>,
        Ben Chan <>,
        Oscar Carter <>,
        Simon Que <>,
        John Joseph <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gasket: Check the return value of

On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 05:59:18PM -0400, Richard Yeh wrote:
> Hi, as a new maintainer, I thought I would try to handle this one.

Great, as a start:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

> This patch looks good to me. This new check properly protects against using
> a negative return value from gasket_get_bar_index() to index into a
> pointer. The gasket_get_bar_index function is called in two other places
> (old lines 845 and 1044) and both other places check the bar_index return
> value for negative values and return error values.
> What is the next step in the process? How do I test the patch? Does Greg
> K-H take these patches directly, or is there something else I should do
> (looking at
> page
> 5: clone from
>, ...)?

Just send a "Reviewed-by:" to the patch and I can take it from there.
Also, I strongly suggest going and talking to your co-maintainers for
exactly how to do this, normally at this point in the process you
already know this as it is usually an experienced developer doing the


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists