linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 080/190] Revert "ALSA: usx2y: fix a double free bug"

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, 27 Apr 2021 15:49:27 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 080/190] Revert "ALSA: usx2y: fix a double free bug"

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:13:27PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:59:15 +0200,
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > This reverts commit cbb88db76a1536e02e93e5bd37ebbfbb6c4043a9.
> > 
> > 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: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> I examined the change again, and confirmed that this code change
> itself is correct, so it's not necessary to revert.
> 
> OTOH, it's just a tip of iceberg in this driver, and maybe it's better
> to cover all in a better way.  So it's fine to revert this, either.

I'll drop the revert, many thanks for the review.

greg k-h