linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] binder: fix max

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: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:00:30 +0000
From: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Serban Constantinescu <serban.constantinescu@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] binder: fix max_thread type inconsistency

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 07:13:44PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> > The type defined for the BINDER_SET_MAX_THREADS ioctl was changed from
> > size_t to __u32 in order to avoid incompatibility issues between 32 and
> > 64-bit kernels. However, the internal types used to copy from user and
> > store the value were never updated. Use u32 to fix the inconsistency.
> > 
> > Fixes: a9350fc859ae ("staging: android: binder: fix BINDER_SET_MAX_THREADS declaration")
> > Reported-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/android/binder.c          | 2 +-
> >  drivers/android/binder_internal.h | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Why does only patch 4/4 need to go into the tree now, and as a stable
> backport, but the first 3 do not?  Shouldn't this be two different
> series of patches, one 3 long, and one 1 long, to go to the different
> branches (next and linus)?

Yes, that is correct. Only patch 4/4 would need to be picked for linus
now and for stable. The others would go to next. Sorry, I was not aware
that sending them separately would be preferred.

I'll drop 4/4 patch from the series in v2. Let me know if you still need
me to send it again separately.

Thanks,
Carlos Llamas