From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7929EC33CAD for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5B1F207FD for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:52:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Cf8izTSc" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E5B1F207FD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47xFQ81HLgzDqDh for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:52:16 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=timur@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Cf8izTSc; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47xFKv3Xp1zDqDD for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:48:34 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-24-28-70-126.austin.res.rr.com [24.28.70.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFDE72081E; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:48:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578923312; bh=ojdxLNukr1LCuPlXur/rQUkQqfSv9iZSOs2G8sP4wwY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Cf8izTScmMR/NCG22p5t4DbZrq1Zineva+mN68neN2TkESLjmmSXAShR876GXOsVv wYXJIQEZA7UYf0AHhrx7VHZnhpW1pWOLpkXbNqCCfutGZCS34/OqiUzKpsyhR18L56 N2Qi8jK04c9AdLAkhWrZLnWA/rLYrgi1fMHVaBQQ= Subject: Re: [PATCH] evh_bytechan: fix out of bounds accesses To: Michael Ellerman , Stephen Rothwell , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , Scott Wood , york sun , b08248@gmail.com References: <20200109183912.5fcb52aa@canb.auug.org.au> <8736cj8rvr.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> From: Timur Tabi Message-ID: <5f17b997-8a6c-841e-8868-c0877750e598@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:48:30 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8736cj8rvr.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: PowerPC Mailing List Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 1/13/20 6:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > I've never heard of it, and I have no idea how to test it. > > It's not used by qemu, I guess there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that > used it. Yes, there is/was a Freescale hypervisor that I and a few others worked on. I've added a couple people on CC that might be able to tell the current disposition of it. > But maybe it's time to remove it if it's not being maintained/used by > anyone? I wouldn't be completely opposed to that if there really are no more users. There really weren't any users even when I wrote the driver. I haven't had a chance to study the patch, but my first instinct is that there's got to be a better way to fix this than introducing a memcpy.