Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-05-12 Thread Kevin Wolf
Am 03.05.2022 um 18:21 hat Jon Maloy geschrieben:
> 
> 
> On 5/3/22 05:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 23.03.2022 um 03:25 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 2:50 PM Thomas Huth  wrote:
> > > > On 10/03/2022 18.53, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > > > > On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > > > On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > > > > > > Trying again with correct email address.
> > > > > > > ///jon
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
> > > > > > > > > > hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun 
> > > > > > > > > > (CVE-2021-3507)
> > > > > > > > > > tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for 
> > > > > > > > > > CVE-2021-3507
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
> > > > > > > > > >tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
> > > > > > > > > >2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Series
> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Jon Maloy 
> > > > > > > > Philippe,
> > > > > > > > I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this 
> > > > > > > > one as
> > > > > > > > "incomplete".
> > > > > > > > I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is 
> > > > > > > > just a
> > > > > > > > mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous 
> > > > > > > > calculation.
> > > > > > > > Or did you have anything else in mind?
> > > > > > Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   Thomas
> > > > > > 
> > > > > The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
> > > > > The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a 
> > > > > consistent
> > > > > state, so that we may have other problems later.
> > > > > Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?
> > > > John, Philippe, any ideas how to move this forward?
> > > > 
> > > >Thomas
> > > > 
> > > The ball is indeed in my court. I need to audit this properly and get
> > > the patch re-applied, and get tests passing.
> > > 
> > > As a personal favor: Could you please ping me on IRC tomorrow about
> > > this? (Well, later today, for you.)
> > Going through old patches... Is this one still open?
> > 
> > Kevin
> > 
> Yes, it is.

I was hoping that John would get back to it after my ping, but doesn't
look like it.

So this may not be the perfect fix and the perfect test, but it's
certainly better than having nothing for multiple releases. I fixed up
the test with the snapshot=on that Alexander suggested (this also fixes
the file locking problem Hanna had and that I saw, too) and applied it
to my block branch.

Kevin




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-05-03 Thread Jon Maloy




On 5/3/22 05:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:

Am 23.03.2022 um 03:25 hat John Snow geschrieben:

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 2:50 PM Thomas Huth  wrote:

On 10/03/2022 18.53, Jon Maloy wrote:

On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:

On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:

Trying again with correct email address.
///jon

On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:

On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

   hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
   tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 

Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as
"incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a
mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.
Or did you have anything else in mind?

Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?

  Thomas


The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a consistent
state, so that we may have other problems later.
Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?

John, Philippe, any ideas how to move this forward?

   Thomas


The ball is indeed in my court. I need to audit this properly and get
the patch re-applied, and get tests passing.

As a personal favor: Could you please ping me on IRC tomorrow about
this? (Well, later today, for you.)

Going through old patches... Is this one still open?

Kevin


Yes, it is.

///jon




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-05-03 Thread Kevin Wolf
Am 23.03.2022 um 03:25 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 2:50 PM Thomas Huth  wrote:
> >
> > On 10/03/2022 18.53, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >> On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > >>> Trying again with correct email address.
> > >>> ///jon
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >  On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > >> Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.
> > >>
> > >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
> > >>hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
> > >>tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507
> > >>
> > >>   hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
> > >>   tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
> > >>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > > Series
> > > Acked-by: Jon Maloy 
> > 
> >  Philippe,
> >  I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as
> >  "incomplete".
> >  I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a
> >  mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.
> >  Or did you have anything else in mind?
> > >>
> > >> Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?
> > >>
> > >>  Thomas
> > >>
> > > The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
> > > The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a consistent
> > > state, so that we may have other problems later.
> > > Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?
> >
> > John, Philippe, any ideas how to move this forward?
> >
> >   Thomas
> >
> 
> The ball is indeed in my court. I need to audit this properly and get
> the patch re-applied, and get tests passing.
> 
> As a personal favor: Could you please ping me on IRC tomorrow about
> this? (Well, later today, for you.)

Going through old patches... Is this one still open?

Kevin




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-03-22 Thread John Snow
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 2:50 PM Thomas Huth  wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 18.53, Jon Maloy wrote:
> >
> > On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:
> >>> Trying again with correct email address.
> >>> ///jon
> >>>
> >>> On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:
> 
> 
>  On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:
> >
> > On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.
> >>
> >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
> >>hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
> >>tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507
> >>
> >>   hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
> >>   tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
> >>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >>
> > Series
> > Acked-by: Jon Maloy 
> 
>  Philippe,
>  I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as
>  "incomplete".
>  I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a
>  mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.
>  Or did you have anything else in mind?
> >>
> >> Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?
> >>
> >>  Thomas
> >>
> > The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
> > The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a consistent
> > state, so that we may have other problems later.
> > Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?
>
> John, Philippe, any ideas how to move this forward?
>
>   Thomas
>

The ball is indeed in my court. I need to audit this properly and get
the patch re-applied, and get tests passing.

As a personal favor: Could you please ping me on IRC tomorrow about
this? (Well, later today, for you.)




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-03-18 Thread Thomas Huth

On 10/03/2022 18.53, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:

On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:

Trying again with correct email address.
///jon

On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:



On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 


Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as 
"incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a 
mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.

Or did you have anything else in mind?


Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?

 Thomas


The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a consistent 
state, so that we may have other problems later.

Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?


John, Philippe, any ideas how to move this forward?

 Thomas




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-03-10 Thread Jon Maloy



On 3/10/22 12:14, Thomas Huth wrote:

On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:

Trying again with correct email address.
///jon

On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:



On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 


Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one 
as "incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just 
a mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous 
calculation.

Or did you have anything else in mind?


Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?

 Thomas


The ball is currently with John Snow, as I understand it.
The concern is that this fix may not take the driver back to a 
consistent state, so that we may have other problems later.

Maybe Philippe can chip in with a comment here?

///jon




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-03-10 Thread Thomas Huth

On 06/02/2022 20.19, Jon Maloy wrote:

Trying again with correct email address.
///jon

On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:



On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 


Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as 
"incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a 
mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.

Or did you have anything else in mind?


Any news on this one? It would be nice to get the CVE fixed for 7.0 ?

 Thomas




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-02-06 Thread Jon Maloy

Trying again with correct email address.
///jon

On 2/6/22 14:15, Jon Maloy wrote:



On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 


Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as 
"incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a 
mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.

Or did you have anything else in mind?

Regards
///jon






Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-02-06 Thread Jon Maloy




On 1/27/22 15:14, Jon Maloy wrote:


On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 


Philippe,
I hear from other sources that you earlier have qualified this one as 
"incomplete".
I am of course aware that this one, just like my own patch, is just a 
mitigation and not a complete correction of the erroneous calculation.

Or did you have anything else in mind?

Regards
///jon




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-02-04 Thread John Snow
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 3:11 PM Jon Maloy  wrote:
>
>
> On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.
> >
> > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
> >hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
> >tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507
> >
> >   hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
> >   tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
> >   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >
> Series
> Acked-by: Jon Maloy 
>

I could have sworn that Philippe said that this patch was incomplete
and to not merge it for 6.2, but maybe I mistook that for a different
series.

I seem to recall that this series didn't apply correctly in
conjunction with the fix for 2021-20196, but if there was a followup,
I missed it.

--js




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2022-01-27 Thread Jon Maloy



On 11/18/21 06:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)


Series
Acked-by: Jon Maloy 




Re: [PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2021-11-22 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
ping for 6.2?

On 11/18/21 12:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.
> 
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
>   hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
>   tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507
> 
>  hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
>  tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> 




[PATCH-for-6.2 0/2] hw/block/fdc: Fix CVE-2021-3507

2021-11-18 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Trivial fix for CVE-2021-3507.

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2):
  hw/block/fdc: Prevent end-of-track overrun (CVE-2021-3507)
  tests/qtest/fdc-test: Add a regression test for CVE-2021-3507

 hw/block/fdc.c |  8 
 tests/qtest/fdc-test.c | 20 
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)

-- 
2.31.1