netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] netfilter: nf_tables: fully validate NFT_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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:37:59 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, 
 netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org,  kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, fw@...len.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] netfilter: nf_tables: fully validate
 NFT_DATA_VALUE on store to data registers

On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 12:29 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:26:49PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 03:13 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 05:51:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 16:38, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, I was only the messenger boy, not the actual reporter.
> > > > 
> > > > I think reporting credit should probably go to HexRabbit Chen
> > > > <hexrabbit@...co.re>
> > > 
> > > I would not have really know if you don't tell me TBH, else it would
> > > have taken even longer for me to react and fix it. Because they did
> > > not really contact me to report this issue this time.
> > > 
> > > But if you insist, I will do so.
> > 
> > I'm sorry for the late reply.
> > 
> > I guess the most fair option would be adding both tags. 
> > 
> > With a repost, this will not make it into todays PR, I hope it's not a
> > problem.
> 
> It is a addressing a public issue, the reporter decided to follow a
> different channel other than security@ for whatever reason.
> 
> I'd prefer if you can take it in this round.

Sure, we are still (barely ;) on time!

Thanks for the prompt feedback.

Paolo