netdev - RE: [PATCH] qed: fix uninitialized data in aRFS intrastructure

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: <BLUPR0701MB20046B7EA7273C97047B02F28DED0@BLUPR0701MB2004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2017 14:37:54 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: fix uninitialized data in aRFS intrastructure

> > For the most part - I'm almost all in favor of this change.
> > But just to make it clear - the actual fix could have been a one-liner, right?
> > The rest are style changes.

> Correct. Having the correct length in the memset is a sufficient fix for the warning,
> but it felt wrong to send it since the root of the problem seems to be the
> complexity of the code that was hiding it.

...

> Generally speaking, feel free to treat any of my compile-time warning fix
> patches as simple bug reports and apply a different fix that seems more
> appropriate. I mainly send it in patch form since that seems to be the
> quickest way to address any issues.

Sure. 

Once net-next is re-opened I intend to push our next FW version which
is also going to change some of the aRFS related configurations.

So I think we should stick to the single-liner fix for now,
and I'll revise the style [if still needed; I'll have to check] on that submission.