netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: openvswitch: free vport unless register

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

Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:41:24 +0200
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
        Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>,
        "syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+13210896153522fe1ee5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: openvswitch: free vport unless
 register_netdevice() succeeds

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:08:01 +0800
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> wrote:

> Hey Stefano 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:02:48 +0800 Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > 
> > ---
> > This patch was sent to dev@...nvswitch.org and appeared on netdev
> > only as Pravin replied to it, giving his Acked-by. I contacted the  
> 
> Correct. I am unable to find the patches I sent to lkml on
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/.
> 
> > original author one month ago requesting to resend this to netdev,
> > but didn't get an answer, so I'm now resending the original patch.
> >   
> Nor patches to <xyz@...r.kernel.org>.
> Say sorry to you for missing in action.
> I sent a mail to <postmaster@...r.kernel.org> sometime ago asking for
> how to cure the pain, without a message echoed since.
> That is my poor defend.

Ouch, and also this reply didn't reach netdev. Looking at headers:

Received: from r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn (r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn [202.108.3.20])
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9868983F45
	for <sbrivio@...hat.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:08:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain)([222.131.66.83])
	by sina.com with ESMTP
	id 5DAD919A000082B3; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:08:12 +0800 (CST)

it's not in DNSRBL or anything, and looks similar enough to e.g.:

	https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10663003/

that was received without issues by majordomo@...r.kernel.org. The only
relevant difference seems to be the missing HELO from
r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn, I have no idea why that would be omitted.

Headers added by MTA delivering this to me:

X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, ACL 264 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:08:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:08:19 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'202.108.3.20' DOMAIN:'r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn' HELO:'r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn' FROM:'hdanton@...a.com' RCPT:''
X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0.001  (FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS) 202.108.3.20 r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn 202.108.3.20 r3-20.sinamail.sina.com.cn <hdanton@...a.com>

it even passes SPF. But maybe the missing HELO is a problem for SPF on
vger.kernel.org?

Checked against http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-taboos.txt, also no
matches.

Sorry, I don't have any suggestions other than contacting
postmaster@...r.kernel.org again -- perhaps from a different address.

> >  net/openvswitch/vport-internal_dev.c | 11 ++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)  
> 
> And feel free to pick up the diff if they make sense, as you see,
> they were sent usually without the Signed-off-by tag.

I think this submission should be fine, I added you as From: and kept
your original Signed-off-by -- thanks for fixing this by the way!

-- 
Stefano