linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: fix atomicity violation in n_tty

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOPYjvZYdPSiZ+jX4vhwPQ3AKRvW15XT1znAa8vd9a6DVoor5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:59:11 +0800
From: Gui-Dong Han <2045gemini@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@...look.com, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: fix atomicity violation in n_tty_read

Hi

I apologize for any confusion caused by my reference to Linux 5.17 in
the patch description. I'm currently working on a project involving
kernel static analysis to identify atomicity violations, and part of
this work involves comparison with a previous study that supports up
to Linux 5.17. Therefore, I initially ran my tool on 5.17 to filter
potential bugs that are still unaddressed in the upstream. I want to
clarify that the patch was developed and tested on linux-next. I
realize now that this may have led to misunderstandings, and I will
ensure clearer communication in future submissions.
My experience with Linux kernel contributions is still growing, and I
acknowledge that my recent submission might have been hasty and lacked
thorough consideration, especially regarding the critical nature of
n_tty_read and the potential impacts of the patch, like performance
concerns. I will take more care in future assessments before
submitting patches and continue to familiarize myself with the rules
and practices of the Linux kernel community.

Thanks,
Han