From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Rick Mark <rickmark@outlook.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
Kernel Development List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
USB mailing list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: USB Security in the Linux Kernel
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:32:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200525193225.GA8993@rowland.harvard.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR04MB0687B41BCA703AF5DA6EA7F4DAB30@MWHPR04MB0687.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 05:28:33AM +0000, Rick Mark wrote:
> Hey Alan
>
> You and other previously rejected a patch I submitted 13 months ago
Nobody rejected your patch. We pointed out problems with it, and we
asked you to take a second look and provide more information. You never
replied.
> but have later integrated the changes under your name while missing a
> few key security holes (I am working on another supplemental patch as
> we speak).
That's not right. Your changes were never merged into the kernel, in
any form.
> Can you reconcile this mailing list email with commits made after it
> in your name?
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10941901/
>
> Commit a03ff54460817c76105f81f3aa8ef655759ccc9a
What is there to reconcile? Your patch and my commit touched different
code and addressed different (although similar) problems. More
specifically, your patch made changes to these routines:
find_next_descriptor()
usb_parse_ssp_isoc_endpoint_companion()
usb_parse_ss_endpoint_companion()
usb_parse_endpoint()
usb_parse_interface()
whereas my commit changed:
usb_get_bos_descriptor().
Furthermore, the changes you made appeared to be unnecessary (you added
checks for things that either had already been checked or were checked a
few lines later), whereas my commit fixed an actual bug, as demonstrated
by syzbot.
> I find it highly improbable you managed to write that patch the same
> day as my submission,
Indeed, I did _not_ write that patch the same day as your submission.
If you check the datestamps on these emails in the archive, you'll see
that my patch was posted on May 13 2019 and yours was posted on May 14,
the next day:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=155776767725342&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=155780009303416&w=2
> and the subsequent patches are also based on my
> original work.
What subsequent patches?
Alan Stern
parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-25 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <MWHPR04MB0687B41BCA703AF5DA6EA7F4DAB30@MWHPR04MB0687.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200525193225.GA8993@rowland.harvard.edu \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=rickmark@outlook.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®