netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: fix NULL pointer reference in cipso_v4_doi

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: <6ca4a2d5-9a9c-1b14-85b4-1f4a0f743104@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 17:41:00 +0800
From:   王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     paul@...l-moore.com, kuba@...nel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: fix NULL pointer reference in cipso_v4_doi_free



On 2021/9/1 下午5:30, David Miller wrote:
> From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:51:28 +0800
> 
>>
>>
>> On 2021/8/31 下午9:48, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:42 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021/8/31 上午12:50, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>>>> Reported-by: Abaci <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  net/netlabel/netlabel_cipso_v4.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see this was already merged, but it looks good to me, thanks for
>>>>>>> making those changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW it looks like v1 was also merged:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=733c99ee8b
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that is unfortunate, there was a brief discussion about that
>>>>> over on one of the -stable patches for the v1 patch (odd that I never
>>>>> saw a patchbot post for the v1 patch?).  Having both merged should be
>>>>> harmless, but we want to revert the v1 patch as soon as we can.
>>>>> Michael, can you take care of this?
>>>>
>>>> As v1 already merged, may be we could just goon with it?
>>>>
>>>> Actually both working to fix the problem, v1 will cover all the
>>>> cases, v2 take care one case since that's currently the only one,
>>>> but maybe there will be more in future.
>>>
>>> No.  Please revert v1 and stick with the v2 patch.  The v1 patch is in
>>> my opinion a rather ugly hack that addresses the symptom of the
>>> problem and not the root cause.
>>>
>>> It isn't your fault that both v1 and v2 were merged, but I'm asking
>>> you to help cleanup the mess.  If you aren't able to do that please
>>> let us know so that others can fix this properly.
>>
>> No problem I can help on that, just try to make sure it's not a
>> meaningless work.
>>
>> So would it be fine to send out a v3 which revert v1 and apply v2?
> 
> Please don't do things this way just send the relative change.

Could you please check the patch:

Revert "net: fix NULL pointer reference in cipso_v4_doi_free"

see if that's the right way?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Thanks.
>