linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 168/190] Revert "net: marvell: fix a missing check of acpi_match

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]

Message-ID: <CAKdAkRRw9RVCpasnB7hzAjW7gKQOuud-YWXgj281zrO0ri=AyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:50:16 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 168/190] Revert "net: marvell: fix a missing check of acpi_match_device"

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 6:47 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:00:43PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 92ee77d148bf06d8c52664be4d1b862583fd5c0e.
> > >
> > > 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: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
> > > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
> > > index 1767c60056c5..f1a70b37227f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
> > > @@ -7328,8 +7328,6 @@ static int mvpp2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >     if (has_acpi_companion(&pdev->dev)) {
> > >             acpi_id = acpi_match_device(pdev->dev.driver->acpi_match_table,
> > >                                         &pdev->dev);
> > > -           if (!acpi_id)
> > > -                   return -EINVAL;
> > >             priv->hw_version = (unsigned long)acpi_id->driver_data;
> > >     } else {
> > >             priv->hw_version =
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
> > >
> >
> > The original commit here looks correct, so I'll drop this revert.
>
> Agreed, the original patch looks fine to me and the revert is
> unnecessary.

I wonder how useful these kinds of patches/checks are. If we are
dealing with ACPI platform device we must have matched on ACPI node
before getting into the probe, so we would match here as well. The
exception would be someone playing with "driver_override" device
attribute, but that someone must be root as therefore have many
options of shooting themselves into foot. So I guess the question is:
do we need to bloat the code with such checks?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry