linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Introduce sendpage_ok() to detect misused sendpage in network related drivers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20201002.152829.1002796270145913943.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     colyli@...e.de
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chaitanya.kulkarni@....com,
        cleech@...hat.com, hch@....de, amwang@...hat.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, hare@...e.de, idryomov@...il.com,
        jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        lduncan@...e.com, michaelc@...wisc.edu,
        mskorzhinskiy@...arflare.com, philipp.reisner@...bit.com,
        sagi@...mberg.me, vvs@...tuozzo.com, vbabka@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Introduce sendpage_ok() to detect misused
 sendpage in network related drivers

From: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 2020 16:27:27 +0800

> As Sagi Grimberg suggested, the original fix is refind to a more common
> inline routine:
>     static inline bool sendpage_ok(struct page *page)
>     {
>         return  (!PageSlab(page) && page_count(page) >= 1);
>     }
> If sendpage_ok() returns true, the checking page can be handled by the
> concrete zero-copy sendpage method in network layer.

Series applied.

> The v10 series has 7 patches, fixes a WARN_ONCE() usage from v9 series,
 ...

I still haven't heard from you how such a fundamental build failure
was even possible.

If the v9 patch series did not even compile, how in the world did you
perform functional testing of these changes?

Please explain this to me, instead of just quietly fixing it and
posting an updated series.

Thank you.