linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 186/190] Revert "virt: vbox: Only copy_from

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:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:59:58 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 186/190] Revert "virt: vbox: Only copy_from_user the
 request-header once"

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:51:24PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 4/21/21 3:01 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This reverts commit bd23a7269834dc7c1f93e83535d16ebc44b75eba.
> > 
> > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> > malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > 
> > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > codebase.
> > 
> > Cc: Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
> > Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> Ugh what a mess (the whole umn.edu thing).
> 
> I still remember reviewing this patch during its original submission
> and I've reviewed it again this morning when you just send it out.
> 
> And now after letting it sit for a bit I've reviewed it a third time
> and it seems to do what it says on the label / in the original commit
> msg; and if fixes a real, potentially security, issue.
> 
> I'm not sure what the process is for "good" patches in the set
> which you are reverting. I would prefer for this patch to be dropped
> from the set of reveert. But I can also submit a revert of the revert(?)
> once this set of reverts has been merged.

If you have reviewed it, and think it should stay, I will drop the
revert from my patch series.  Other maintainers/reviewers have asked the
same thing for their patches, which is fine.

Anything that I do end up reverting, that was not reviewed, will be
again reviewed by me and others to determine if it is "safe" to come
back in at a later point in time.

So thanks for the review, I'll drop this one.

thanks,

greg k-h