netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCHES] sock_alloc_file() cleanups and fixes

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: <20171205232928.GZ21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:29:28 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHES] sock_alloc_file() cleanups and fixes

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:44:43PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:41:01 +0000
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:35:24AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:20:27 +0000
> >> 
> >> > 	1) massage sys_socketpair() (should be a pure cleanup)
> >> > 	2) fix and clean up kcm_clone() (-stable fodder)
> >> > 	3) switch sock_alloc_file() to new calling conventions.
> >> > 
> >> > 	It got some local testing, but it certainly needs more review.
> >> > Diffstat for the entire thing is
> >> 
> >> Series looks great to me:
> >> 
> >> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > 
> > How do you prefer it to be handled?  KCM one should go into everything
> > since 4.6 (with trivial modifications in 4.11 and 4.12 - both had
> > massaged the place around the call of kcm_clone() a bit, but this fix
> > overwrites the entire area and that can be dropped into earlier
> > kernels without any problems).  I've put that into vfs.git#net-fixes
> > and have the other two in vfs.git#for-davem on top of that, with
> > you merging the latter into net-next.git and the former - into net.git.
> > Is that OK with you, or would you prefer some other way of handling
> > that kind of stuff?
> 
> Why don't you resubmit this to netdev as a non-RFC, I'll queue it up to
> 'net' and -stable as well.

Sent...