linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix the iio-gts-helpers available times table sorting

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: Tue, 7 May 2024 09:14:15 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chenyuan Yang <chenyuan0y@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix the iio-gts-helpers available times table
 sorting

On 5/6/24 15:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300
>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Fix the available times table sorting in iio-gts-helpers
>>>>
>>>> This series contains a fix and test for the sorting of the available times in
>>>> IIO-gts helpers. Fix was originally developed and posted by Chenyuan Yang.
>>>>
>>>> Revision history:
>>>> 	v1 => v2:
>>>> 	  - Fix the sender for patch 1/2 (Sic!)
>>>> 	  - Fix Co-Developed-by tag (drop this from Chenyuan who
>>>> 	    is the original author)
>>>> 	  - Fix the From: tag as instructed in:
>>>> 	    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
>>>
>>> Am I right in thinking this doesn't matter for existing drivers?
>>
>> I think this is right. Only couple of in-tree drivers are using these
>> helpers for now, and all of them sorted the tables already in driver.
>>
>>> As such not high priority for back porting?
>>
>> The bug is pretty nasty as it causes invalid memory accesses. Hence I'd
>> like to see this landing in the longterm kernels. It seems to me the GTS
>> helpers got merged in 6.4, so getting the fix backported to 6.6 might
>> make sense.
>>
>>> I'll assume that and queue it up for 6.11. If someone shouts I can pull the fix
>>> forwards, but then we have the mess of chasing the testing in later.
>>
>> I am sorry Jonathan but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pulling fix
>> forward", or what is the "mess of chasing the testing in later" :)
> 
> Hmm. That was an odd choice of words :)  I just meant that I could send
> the fix in the first set of fixes after 6.10-rc1 rather than waiting for 6.11.

Oh, right :)

> For now I'll leave it queued for 6.11 on the basis there are a lot of ways
> a driver writer can cause similar out of bounds accesses and they should
> notice it not working during testing.  So it 'should' not be a problem to
> not rush this in.
> 

I guess this means the 6.10 won't have the fix? I believe this is fine - 
assuming the 6.10 is not going to be an LTS. Thanks for taking care of 
this! :)

Yours,
	-- Matti


-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~