linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] 9p/xen : Fix use after free bug in xen_9pfs_front

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: <ZA+etMBFSw/999Aq@codewreck.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 07:07:48 +0900
From:   asmadeus@...ewreck.org
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@....com>, ericvh@...il.com,
        lucho@...kov.net, linux_oss@...debyte.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hackerzheng666@...il.com,
        1395428693sheep@...il.com, alex000young@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] 9p/xen : Fix use after free bug in
 xen_9pfs_front_remove due  to race condition

Jakub Kicinski wrote on Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:30:54PM -0700:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:54:20 +0100 Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rings; i++) {
> > > +		/*cancel work*/  
> > It isn't needed I think, the function cancel_work_sync() tells everything
> > here.
> 
> Note that 9p is more storage than networking, so this patch is likely
> to go via a different tree than us.

Any review done is useful anyway ;)

Either Eric or me will take the patch, but in the past such fixes have
sometimes also been taken into the net tree; honestly I wouldn't mind a
bit more "rule" here as it's a bit weird that some of our patches are Cc
to fsdevel@ (fs/ from fs/9p) and the other half netdev@ (net/ from
net/9p), but afaict the MAINTAINERS syntax doesn't have a way of
excluding e.g. net/9p from the `NETWORKING [GENERAL]` group so I guess
we just have to live with that.

There's little enough volume and netdev automation sends a mail when a
patch is picked up, so as long as there's no conflict (large majority of
the cases) such fixes can go either way as far as I'm concerned.

-- 
Dominique