Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:57:41 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 073/190] Revert "media: rcar_drif: fix a memory disclosure" |
| |
Hi Laurent,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:22 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 08:58:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:06 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > This reverts commit d39083234c60519724c6ed59509a2129fd2aed41. > > > > > > 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: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu> > > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > Upon a second look, I still see nothing wrong with the original commit. > > However, as I'm no v4l expert, I'd like to defer to the experts for final > > judgement. > > It seems fine to me, but it also seems unneeded, as the V4L2 core clears > the whole f->fmt union before calling this operation. The revert will > this improve performance very slightly.
Hmm, that means very recent commit f12b81e47f48940a ("media: core headers: fix kernel-doc warnings") is not fully correct, as it added kerneldoc stating this is the responsibility of the driver:
+ * @reserved: drivers and applications must zero this array
Anyway, it doesn't look like this umn.edu patch introduced a bug.
> > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/rcar_drif.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/rcar_drif.c > > > @@ -915,7 +915,6 @@ static int rcar_drif_g_fmt_sdr_cap(struct file *file, void *priv, > > > { > > > struct rcar_drif_sdr *sdr = video_drvdata(file); > > > > > > - memset(f->fmt.sdr.reserved, 0, sizeof(f->fmt.sdr.reserved)); > > > f->fmt.sdr.pixelformat = sdr->fmt->pixelformat; > > > f->fmt.sdr.buffersize = sdr->fmt->buffersize;
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |