| Message ID | 7f239a0e-7a09-3dc0-43ce-27c19c7a309d@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Revert "net: fix NULL pointer reference in cipso_v4_doi_free" | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 7 of 7 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 1 this patch: 1 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email name mismatch: 'From: "王贇" <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>' != 'Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>' |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 1 this patch: 1 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
Hi Paul, it confused me since it's the first time I face such situation, but I just realized what you're asking is actually this revert, correct? Regards, Michael Wang On 2021/9/1 上午10:18, 王贇 wrote: > This reverts commit 733c99ee8be9a1410287cdbb943887365e83b2d6. > > Since commit e842cb60e8ac ("net: fix NULL pointer reference in > cipso_v4_doi_free") also applied to fix the root cause, we can > just revert the old version now. > > Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > index 7fbd0b5..099259f 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > @@ -465,16 +465,14 @@ void cipso_v4_doi_free(struct cipso_v4_doi *doi_def) > if (!doi_def) > return; > > - if (doi_def->map.std) { > - switch (doi_def->type) { > - case CIPSO_V4_MAP_TRANS: > - kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.cipso); > - kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.local); > - kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.cipso); > - kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.local); > - kfree(doi_def->map.std); > - break; > - } > + switch (doi_def->type) { > + case CIPSO_V4_MAP_TRANS: > + kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.cipso); > + kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.local); > + kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.cipso); > + kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.local); > + kfree(doi_def->map.std); > + break; > } > kfree(doi_def); > } >
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:21 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul, it confused me since it's the first time I face > such situation, but I just realized what you're asking is > actually this revert, correct? I believe DaveM already answered your question in the other thread, but if you are still unsure about the patch let me know.
On 2021/9/2 上午5:05, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:21 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, it confused me since it's the first time I face >> such situation, but I just realized what you're asking is >> actually this revert, correct? > > I believe DaveM already answered your question in the other thread, > but if you are still unsure about the patch let me know. I do failed to get the point :-( As I checked the: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git both v1 and v2 are there with the same description and both code modification are applied. We want revert v1 but not in a revert patch style, then do you suggest send a normal patch to do the code revert? Regards, Michael Wang >
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:37 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > On 2021/9/2 上午5:05, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:21 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Paul, it confused me since it's the first time I face > >> such situation, but I just realized what you're asking is > >> actually this revert, correct? > > > > I believe DaveM already answered your question in the other thread, > > but if you are still unsure about the patch let me know. > > I do failed to get the point :-( > > As I checked the: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git > > both v1 and v2 are there with the same description and both code modification > are applied. > > We want revert v1 but not in a revert patch style, then do you suggest > send a normal patch to do the code revert? It sounds like DaveM wants you to create a normal (not a revert) patch that removes the v1 changes while leaving the v2 changes intact. In the patch description you can mention that v1 was merged as a mistake and that v2 is the correct fix (provide commit IDs for each in your commit description using the usual 12-char hash snippet followed by the subject in parens-and-quotes).
On 2021/9/3 上午10:15, Paul Moore wrote: [snip] >> both v1 and v2 are there with the same description and both code modification >> are applied. >> >> We want revert v1 but not in a revert patch style, then do you suggest >> send a normal patch to do the code revert? > > It sounds like DaveM wants you to create a normal (not a revert) patch > that removes the v1 changes while leaving the v2 changes intact. In > the patch description you can mention that v1 was merged as a mistake > and that v2 is the correct fix (provide commit IDs for each in your > commit description using the usual 12-char hash snippet followed by > the subject in parens-and-quotes). Thanks for the kindly explain, I've sent: [PATCH] net: remove the unnecessary check in cipso_v4_doi_free Which actually revert the v1 and mentioned v2 fixed the root casue, Would you please take a look see if that is helpful? Regards, Michael Wang >
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:31 PM 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > On 2021/9/3 上午10:15, Paul Moore wrote: > [snip] > >> both v1 and v2 are there with the same description and both code modification > >> are applied. > >> > >> We want revert v1 but not in a revert patch style, then do you suggest > >> send a normal patch to do the code revert? > > > > It sounds like DaveM wants you to create a normal (not a revert) patch > > that removes the v1 changes while leaving the v2 changes intact. In > > the patch description you can mention that v1 was merged as a mistake > > and that v2 is the correct fix (provide commit IDs for each in your > > commit description using the usual 12-char hash snippet followed by > > the subject in parens-and-quotes). > > Thanks for the kindly explain, I've sent: > [PATCH] net: remove the unnecessary check in cipso_v4_doi_free > > Which actually revert the v1 and mentioned v2 fixed the root casue, > Would you please take a look see if that is helpful? That looks correct to me, acked. Thanks.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c index 7fbd0b5..099259f 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c +++ b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c @@ -465,16 +465,14 @@ void cipso_v4_doi_free(struct cipso_v4_doi *doi_def) if (!doi_def) return; - if (doi_def->map.std) { - switch (doi_def->type) { - case CIPSO_V4_MAP_TRANS: - kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.cipso); - kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.local); - kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.cipso); - kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.local); - kfree(doi_def->map.std); - break; - } + switch (doi_def->type) { + case CIPSO_V4_MAP_TRANS: + kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.cipso); + kfree(doi_def->map.std->lvl.local); + kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.cipso); + kfree(doi_def->map.std->cat.local); + kfree(doi_def->map.std); + break; } kfree(doi_def); }
This reverts commit 733c99ee8be9a1410287cdbb943887365e83b2d6. Since commit e842cb60e8ac ("net: fix NULL pointer reference in cipso_v4_doi_free") also applied to fix the root cause, we can just revert the old version now. Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> --- net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c | 18 ++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)