netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ttd45hve.fsf@somnus>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:31:33 +0200
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg
 KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
 bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
 johnstul@...ibm.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, jstultz@...gle.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check
 in pc_clock_settime()

Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> writes:

> Hi!
>
>> >> > I'm guessing we can push this into 6.12-rc and the other patch into
>> >> > net-next. I'll toss it into net on Monday unless someone objects.  
>> >> 
>> >> Can you folks please at least wait until the maintainers of the code in
>> >> question had a look ?
>> >
>> > You are literally quoting the text where I say I will wait 3 more days.
>> > Unfortunately "until the maintainers respond" leads to waiting forever
>> > 50% of the time, and even when we cap at 3 working days we have 300
>> > patches in the queue (292 right now, and I already spent 2 hours
>> > reviewing today). Hope you understand.
>> 
>> I understand very well, but _I_ spent the time to review the earlier
>> variants of these patches and to debate with the submitter up to rev
>> 5.
>> 
>> Now you go and apply a patch to a subsystem you do not even maintain just
>> because I did not have the bandwidth to look at it within the time
>> limit you defined? Seriously?
>> 
>> This problem is there for years, so a few days +/- are absolutely not
>> relevant.
>> 
>> > Sorry if we applied too early, please review, I'll revert if it's no
>> > good.
>
> It is no good :-( and it is now in stable.
>
> It needs to goto out in the error case, to permit cleanups.

The check needs to be done before taking the lock. There is already a
patch around which solves it:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241018100748.706462-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com/

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria