netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] iwlwifi: dbg: Don't touch the tlv data

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:08:22 +0000
From:   "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>
CC:     "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iwlwifi: dbg: Don't touch the tlv data

On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 17:02 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:48:56 +0100,
> Kalle Valo wrote:
> > 
> > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> writes:
> > 
> > > The commit ba8f6f4ae254 ("iwlwifi: dbg: add dumping special device
> > > memory") added a termination of name string just to be sure, and this
> > > seems causing a regression, a GPF triggered at firmware loading.
> > > Basically we shouldn't modify the firmware data that may be provided
> > > as read-only.
> > > 
> > > This patch drops the code that caused the regression and keep the tlv
> > > data as is.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: ba8f6f4ae254 ("iwlwifi: dbg: add dumping special device memory")
> > > BugLink: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180344
> > > BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210733
> > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > 
> > I'm planning to queue this to v5.11. Should I add cc stable?
> 
> Yes, it hits 5.10.y.
> 
> > Luca, can I have your ack?
> 
> It'd be great if this fix goes in quickly.

Thanks for the fix!

Acked-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>



> BTW, I thought network people don't want to have Cc-to-stable in the
> patch, so I didn't put it by myself.  Is this rule still valid?

In the wireless side of network, we've always used Cc stable when
needed, but the Fixes tag itself will almost always trigger the stable
people to take it anyway.

--
Cheers,
Luca.