Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 059/190] Revert "RDMA/srpt: Remove unnecessary assertion in srpt_queue_response" | From | Bart Van Assche <> | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:05:44 -0700 |
| |
On 4/21/21 7:05 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:02:47AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:58:54PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> This reverts commit 9f48db0d4a08624bb9ba847ea40c8abad753b396. >>> >>> Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad >>> faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known >>> malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a >>> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy >>> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing >>> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University >>> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota). >>> >>> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from >>> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if >>> they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this >>> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the >>> codebase. >>> >>> Cc: https >>> Cc: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu> >>> Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> >>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> >>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >>> drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> I think this one is fine > > Sorry, I realize that is unclear. I mean I don't see a reason to > revert this patch.
Greg, I share Jason's opinion and would like to see this revert dropped. The function srpt_queue_response() dereferences the 'ch' pointer before the BUG_ON(ch) statement is reached. I think this makes the BUG_ON() statement that would be reintroduced by this revert superfluous.
Thanks,
Bart.
| |