Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 053/118] Revert "Revert "xfrm: Fix
 stack-out-of-bounds read in xfrm_state_find.""
References: <20180115123415.325497625@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20180115123418.624941321@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20180115132328.cuwcmhb262z2psgl@gauss3.secunet.de>
 <20180115.115612.281197218565244967.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20180116063339.cvslencknccrbs73@gauss3.secunet.de>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Organization: 6WIND
Message-ID: <0f075b61-5b5d-9055-6664-82df2d316d0c@6wind.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:44:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180116063339.cvslencknccrbs73@gauss3.secunet.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Le 16/01/2018 à 07:33, Steffen Klassert a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:56:12AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
>> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:29 +0100
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:34:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> 4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This reverts commit 94802151894d482e82c324edf2c658f8e6b96508.
>>>>
>>>> It breaks transport mode when the policy template has
>>>> wildcard addresses configured.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>
>>> Hm, this seems to be one revert too much.
>>>
>>> commit 94802151894d482e82c324edf2c658f8e6b96508 reverted already
>>> the buggy commit. Reverting the revert will bring the bug back.
>>
>> Steffen, in the email where you asked me to revert that is the
>> commit ID you referenced.
> 
> I think there was a misunderstanding. I asked you to queue the
> commit with that ID to stable on Dec 23 (this commit ID is the
> revert of the buggy patch). This commit was included to stable
> on Jan 4 then:
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg208727.html
> 
> So with this, everything was ok.
> 
> Maybe you started to look again into this because Nicolas Dichtel
> (Cced) asked to queue this patch on Jan 5, the patch was already
> in the stable tree (Jan 4) but probably not in an actual release
> at this time.
Oh, I didn't find it at this time in the linux-stable tree nor in the stable
patchwork. Bad timing :/

I still don't find it in the patchwork:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?series=&submitter=1442&state=*&q=&archive=both
Am I missing something?

> 
>>
>> We can drop this, but you need to then tell us whether 4.14 needs
>> the revert any longer and if so what the correct SHA ID would
>> be.
> 
> I think we can we can just drop this.
> 
> Unless Nicolas knows something that is still missing, v4.14.12 and
> above should be ok as is.
I agree, we can drop this.


Thank you,
Nicolas