linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/math/rational.c: Fix divide by zero

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 15:03:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oskar Schirmer <oskar@...ra.com>, Yiyuan Guo <yguoaz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/math/rational.c: Fix divide by zero

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:21 PM Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 2:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:17:48PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:51 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 05:18:06PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This misses the test cases (*). Please, develop them with Daniel.
> > > >
> > > > *) We usually don't accept changes in the generic libraries without test cases.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes tag?
> > >
> > > Is there a bug report on a tracker?  I just got the email from Yigua.
> >
> > Fixes tag refers to the existing commit that brought the bug.
> > Also you may need to add Reported-by tag since Yigua reported it.
>
> I did add a Reported-by tag.

Oh, I haven't seen it in the context left, but yes, I see it in the
original mail, thanks!

>  Wasn't clear to me fixing a specific
> commit was entirely appropriate since not handling out of range values
> correctly has been there all along.

Daniel proposed one, wouldn't it be good enough?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko