linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: benchmark: Add padding to ensure uABI remained consistent

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f8c0cbdc-9c68-46bb-8dad-1d7c80f3f741@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 14:32:39 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Qinxin Xia <xiaqinxin@...wei.com>
Cc: robin.murphy@....com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
	prime.zeng@...wei.com, fanghao11@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@...wei.com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: benchmark: Add padding to ensure uABI
 remained consistent

On 24.07.2025 11:42, Barry Song wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 5:35 PM Qinxin Xia <xiaqinxin@...wei.com> wrote:
>> On 2025/7/24 17:07:08, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 4:56 PM Qinxin Xia <xiaqinxin@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>> The padding field in the structure was previously reserved to
>>>> maintain a stable interface for potential new fields, ensuring
>>>> compatibility with user-space shared data structures.
>>>> However,it was accidentally removed by tiantao in a prior commit,
>>>> which may lead to incompatibility between user space and the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> This patch reinstates the padding to restore the original structure
>>>> layout and preserve compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 8ddde07a3d28 ("dma-mapping: benchmark: extract a common header file for map_benchmark definition")
>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Acked-by: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qinxin Xia <xiaqinxin@...wei.com>
>>> I don’t think these two patches should be part of the same series. This
>>> one is a bug fix and should be handled separately—ideally picked up on
>>> its own and backported to stable.
>>>
>>> Also, the subject should not say "Add"—it should be "Restore". I assume
>>> Marek can handle it?
> ...
>> Ok, I will send a new version to fix it.
> If Marek can help fix it while picking it up into the dma-mapping tree, you
> might not need to send a new version.
>
> Honestly, I hope this gets merged soon—it feels like it's been
> overdue for quite a while.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this need to go via dma-mapping tree. I 
will take it after this merge window.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland