From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754824AbcHWSYN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:24:13 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:53203 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750879AbcHWSYM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:24:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20160823.112406.549221808236512285.davem@davemloft.net> To: ben@decadent.org.uk Cc: luis.henriques@canonical.com, avijitnsec@codeaurora.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1471973727.13300.162.camel@decadent.org.uk> References: <1471959668-18209-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> <20160823.094029.1244944495918162255.davem@davemloft.net> <1471973727.13300.162.camel@decadent.org.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Ben Hutchings Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:35:27 +0100 > On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 09:40 -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Luis Henriques >> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:41:07 +0100 >> >> > Digging through some old CVEs I came across this one that doesn't >> seem be >> > in mainline.  Was there a good reason for not being sent upstream?  >> Maybe it was >> > rejected for some reason and I failed to find the discussion. >> >> Because the patch is completely bogus, and thus so is the CVE. >> >> The variable initializer clears out the entire structure. >> >> Until you can show compiler output from gcc that shows it not >> initializing the structure I will not apply this patch because I know >> that it faithfully does. > > On some versions and architectures.  Can you guarantee that you will > notice when an exception appears? Again, show me the assembler output exhibiting the lack of initialization, for this specific structure and situation. That's all that I'm asking.