linux-kernel - Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:40:33 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     "Niedermayr, BENEDIKT" <benedikt.niedermayr@...mens.com>,
        "rogerq@...nel.org" <rogerq@...nel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        "tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
        "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues

On 08/11/2022 09:15, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote:

>>> Another alternative with less churn is to leave them as u32
>>> but make GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID set to a large positive number.
>> Ok, I will fix that. 
>> Do I need to send a new fix-patch on top the current patch series? 
>> Or should I just send only the bugfix-patch for the coverity-bot? 
>>
> Sorry, another Question: 
> Is it somehow possible to check locally if the bugfix actually fixed the bug, before I submit the patch?

I think only if you have Coverity somewhere in your company set for
testing kernel...

Best regards,
Krzysztof