linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix incorrect parameters in NULL pointer checking

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: <CAADnVQ+iTrTmbMcjt7fR7uTS=1tFcjv=z2CY6fO-4=kkM4YSMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:07:27 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix incorrect parameters in NULL pointer checking

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:50 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 02:03:17PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> > On 8/19/24 7:34 PM, Hao Ge wrote:
> > > From: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
> > >
> > > Smatch reported the following warning:
> > >      ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c:455 get_xlated_program()
> > >      warn: variable dereferenced before check 'buf' (see line 454)
> > >
> > > It seems correct,so let's modify it based on it's suggestion.
> > >
> > > Actually,commit b23ed4d74c4d ("selftests/bpf: Fix invalid pointer
> > > check in get_xlated_program()") fixed an issue in the test_verifier.c
> > > once,but it was reverted this time.
> > >
> > > Let's solve this issue with the minimal changes possible.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1eb3732f-605a-479d-ba64-cd14250cbf91@stanley.mountain/
> > > Fixes: b4b7a4099b8c ("selftests/bpf: Factor out get_xlated_program() helper")
> > > Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
> >
> > In the future, please change subject '[PATCH] ...' to '[PATCH bpf-next] ...'
> > so CI can properly test it.
>
> It feels like there should be a technical solution to this.  The CI system is
> something on AWS and it's too expensive to just check every patch that's sent to
> the bpf list?  My understanding is that there are only two bpf trees.
>
>         if [ "$FIXES_HASH" == "" ] ; then
>                 TREE=next
>         elif git merge-base --is-ancestor $FIXES_HASH origin/master ; then
>                 TREE=linus
>         else
>                 TREE=next
>         fi
>
> These days the zero day bot people are checking around a thousand git trees.
> They pull emails off the various lists and apply them to the right places.  It's
> a doable thing.

Dan,

Various people pointed out that you need to use the proper subject in
the patches.
You clearly knew that rule and yet you ignored it,
and worse still you keep coming up with these excuses.
Don't be surprised that people who are supposed to review your patches
will take a long time to reply or "forget" about them as you "forget"
about patch submission rules.