linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] net: netconsole refactoring and warning fix

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: <20241003172950.65f507b8@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:29:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 thepacketgeek@...il.com, horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...emonkey.org.uk, max@...sevol.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] net: netconsole refactoring and
 warning fix

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 06:11:59 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> To address these issues, the following steps were taken:
> 
>  * Breaking down write_ext_msg() into smaller functions with clear scopes
>  * Improving readability and reasoning about the code
>  * Simplifying and clarifying naming conventions
> 
> Warning Fix
> -----------
> 
> The warning occurred when there was insufficient buffer space to append
> userdata. While this scenario is acceptable (as userdata can be sent in a
> separate packet later), the kernel was incorrectly raising a warning.  A
> one-line fix has been implemented to resolve this issue.
> 
> A self-test was developed to write messages of every possible length
> This test will be submitted in a separate patchset

Makes sense in general, but why isn't the fix sent to net first, 
and then once the trees converge (follow Thursday) we can apply 
the refactoring and improvements on top?

The false positive warning went into 6.9 if I'm checking correctly.