netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: fix version parsing

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: <Y9liesGIeKFkf+tI@corigine.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:48:26 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: fix version parsing

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:30:35PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> When connecting the Xen 9pfs frontend to the backend, the "versions"
> Xenstore entry written by the backend is parsed in a wrong way.
> 
> The "versions" entry is defined to contain the versions supported by
> the backend separated by commas (e.g. "1,2"). Today only version "1"
> is defined. Unfortunately the frontend doesn't look for "1" being
> listed in the entry, but it is expecting the entry to have the value
> "1".
> 
> This will result in failure as soon as the backend will support e.g.
> versions "1" and "2".
> 
> Fix that by scanning the entry correctly.
> 
> Fixes: 71ebd71921e4 ("xen/9pfs: connect to the backend")
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>

It's unclear if this series is targeted at 'net' or 'net-next'.
FWIIW, I feel I feel it would be more appropriate for the latter
as these do not feel like bug fixes: feel free to differ on that.

Regardless,

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>