linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 125/135] drm/i915: avoid uninitialised var in eb

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: <YRPLbV+Dq2xTnv2e@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:06:53 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        jason@...kstrand.net, Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 125/135] drm/i915: avoid uninitialised var in
 eb_parse()

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2021-08-11 09:46:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > From: Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
> > > > 
> > > > The backport of c9d9fdbc108af8915d3f497bbdf3898bf8f321b8 to 5.10 in
> > > > 6976f3cf34a1a8b791c048bbaa411ebfe48666b1 removed more than it should
> > > > have leading to 'batch' being used uninitialised.  The 5.13 backport and
> > > > the mainline commit did not remove the portion this patch adds back.
> > > 
> > > This patch has no upstream equivalent, right?
> > > 
> > > Which is okay -- it explains it in plain english, but it shows that
> > > scripts should not simply search for anything that looks like SHA and
> > > treat it as upsteam commit it.
> > 
> > Sounds like you have a broken script if you do it that way.
> 
> That is what you told me to do!
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YQEvUay+1Rzp04SO@kroah.com/

Yes, which is fine for matching sha1 values.

> I would happily adapt my script, but there's no
> good/documented/working way to determine upstream commit given -stable
> commit.
> 
> If we could agree on
> 
> Commit: (SHA)
> 
> in the beggining of body, that would be great.
> 
> Upstream: (SHA)
> 
> in sign-off area would be even better.

What exactly are you trying to do when you find a sha1?  For some reason
my scripts work just fine with a semi-free-form way that we currently
have been doing this for the past 17+ years.  What are you attempting to
do that requires such a fixed format?

thanks,

greg k-h