netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ppp: don't call sk_chk

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: <20140712231126.103531fxfrk9sola@kristov.noip.me>
Date:	Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:11:26 +0200
From:	Christoph Schulz <develop@...stov.de>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, isdn@...ux-pingi.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ppp: don't call sk_chk_filter twice

Hello!

Alexei Starovoitov schrieb am Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:59:46 +0200:

>> However, sk_chk_filter() is not idempotent as it sometimes replaces filter
>> codes. So running it a second time over the same filter does not work and
>
> It's a good thing not to call sk_chk_filter() twice, but the commit
> log is incorrect.
> sk_chk_filter() doesn't replace filter codes anymore.

Fair enough. Then how should I correctly proceed to submit this patch  
which fixes a bug in the 3.15 branch (only)? In 3.15.x filter codes  
_are_ replaced (I just checked the code in 3.15.5). And I originally  
based my analysis on 3.15.1. Your statement makes the patch an  
optional improvement for 3.16.x, but it's a necessary fix for 3.15.x.  
Do I need to submit this patch two times with different commit logs?

Thank you in advance,

Christoph Schulz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html