linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix BUG_ON() when directory entry has invalid rec

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:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:18:39 +0100
From:   Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix BUG_ON() when directory entry has invalid
 rec_len

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:21:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote:
> > Grr, looks like I accidentally reused a 'git send-email' from shell
> > history which had a '--in-reply-to' in it.  Please ignore and sorry about
> > that.  I've just resent a new email.
> 
> No worries!  The --in-reply-to wasn't actually a problem, since b4
> generally will do the right thing (and sometimes humans prefer the
> in-reply-to since they can more easily see the patch that it is
> replacing/obsoleting).
> 
> b4 can sometimes get confused when a patch series gets split, and both
> parts of the patch series are in a reply-to mail thread to the
> original patch series, since if it can't use the -vn+1 hueristic or
> the "subject line has stayed the same but has a newer date" hueristic,
> it falls back to "latest patch in the mail thread".  So if there are
> two "valid" patches or patch series in an e-mail thread, b4 -c
> (--check-newer-revisions) can get confused.  But even in that case,
> that it's more a minor annoyance than anything else.
> 
> So in the future, don't feel that you need to resend a patch if
> there's an incorrect/older --in-reply-to; it's not a big deal.

Great, I haven't yet included b4 in my workflow so, to be honest, I didn't
really thought about that tool being confused.  What really made me resend
the patch was that I used the *wrong message-ID in the "--in-reply-to"!
And that thread already had a v2 patch, which would could easily confuse
humans.  Hopefully, b4 won't be confused by that either.

Cheers,
--
Luís