linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vboxsf: fix old signature detection

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, 28 Sep 2021 12:31:03 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vboxsf: fix old signature detection

Hi,

On 9/28/21 12:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:40 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/21 8:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More specifically, ' think '\377' may be either -1 or 255 depending on
>>>> the architecture.
>>>> On most architectures, 'char' is implicitly signed, but on some others
>>>> it is not.
>>>
>>> Yeah. That code is just broken.
>>>
>>> And Arnd, your patch may be "conceptually minimal", in that it keeps
>>> thed broken code and makes it work. But it just dials up the oddity to
>>> 11.
> 
> Thank you for addressing it. I usually try to avoid overthinking changes
> to "unusual" code like this, but your solution is clearly an improvement.
> 
> What really threw me off this time is that my first attempt to address
> the warning was an exact revert of 9d682ea6bcc7 ("vboxsf: Fix the
> check for the old binary mount-arguments struct"), which in turn
> came from a tool that is usually correct and and that both Dan
> and Al thought the original patch was correct when it looked like
> it turned a working (though unusual) implementation  into a broken
> one.
> 
>> I agree that your suggestion is to be the best solution,
>> so how do we move forward with this, do I turn this into a
>> proper patch with you as the author and Arnd as Reported-by and
>> if yes may I add your Signed-off-by to the patch ?
> 
> It's already upstream, see d5f6545934c4 ("qnx4: work around gcc
> false positive warning bug").

Ah, actually you mean: 9b3b353ef330 ("vboxfs: fix broken legacy mount
signature checking"), but other then that yes you're right it
is already upstream.

Thank you Arnd and thank you Linus.

Regards,

Hans