From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: Update LZ4 compressor module based on LZ4 v1.7.2. Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:50:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20170110105025.GA4733@1wt.eu> References: <20170108112542.GC12798@kroah.com> <1484040076-5004-1-git-send-email-4sschmid@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> <20170110100032.GC32419@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sven Schmidt <4sschmid@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bongkyu.kim@lge.com, rsalvaterra@gmail.com, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, anton@enomsg.org, ccross@android.com, keescook@chromium.org, tony.luck@intel.com, phillip@squashfs.org.uk To: Greg KH Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170110100032.GC32419@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:00:32AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21:16AM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > On 01/08/2017 12:25 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > >> This patch updates LZ4 kernel module to LZ4 v1.7.2 by Yann Collet. > > >> The kernel module is inspired by the previous work by Chanho Min. > > >> The updated LZ4 module will not break existing code since there were alias > > >> methods added to ensure backwards compatibility. > > > > > > Meta-comment. Does this update include all of the security fixes that > > > we have made over the past few years to the lz4 code? I don't want to > > > be adding back insecure functions that will cause us problems. > > > > > > Specifically look at the changes I made in 2014 in this directory for an > > > example of what I am talking about here. > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > it doesn't. I didn't have that in mind until now. > > Ick, those changes never got made "upstream"? Not good, but makes sense > as we couldn't really find an "upstream" when we made them :( I *seem* to remember that some of these changes were specific to our implementation, and were discovered during a review after we worked on the the LZO implementation bugs, though I could be wrong. If this is the case, it is one more reason for being extra careful. > As you took this code from somewhere, you might want to also push your > changes for these issues there as well, so that others don't run into > them in the future. Agreed! Willy