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]

Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:51:28 +0800
From:   王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <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 2021/8/31 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?

Regards,
Michael Wang

>