Dear All,
> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 22 April 2021 10:04
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 073/190] Revert "media: rcar_drif: fix a memory
> disclosure"
>
> Em Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:29:36 +0200
> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > On 22/04/2021 08:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Hi Laurent,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:22 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > > <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 08:58:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:06 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >>>> This reverts commit d39083234c60519724c6ed59509a2129fd2aed41.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in
> "bad
> > >>>> faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review
> "known
> > >>>> malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found
> in a
> > >>>> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > >>>> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > >>>> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu
> (University
> > >>>> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted
> from
> > >>>> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine
> if
> > >>>> they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove
> this
> > >>>> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > >>>> codebase.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@xxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>
> > >>> Upon a second look, I still see nothing wrong with the original
> commit.
> > >>> However, as I'm no v4l expert, I'd like to defer to the experts for
> final
> > >>> judgement.
> > >>
> > >> It seems fine to me, but it also seems unneeded, as the V4L2 core
> clears
> > >> the whole f->fmt union before calling this operation. The revert will
> > >> this improve performance very slightly.
> > >
> > > Hmm, that means very recent commit f12b81e47f48940a ("media: core
> > > headers: fix kernel-doc warnings") is not fully correct, as it added
> > > kerneldoc stating this is the responsibility of the driver:
> > >
> > > + * @reserved: drivers and applications must zero this array
> >
> > Actually, it is the V4L2 core used by the driver that zeroes this. So
> > drivers don't need to do this, it's done for them. It used to be the
> > responsibility of the driver itself, but this was all moved to the core
> > framework a long time ago since, duh!, drivers always forgot this :-)
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, it doesn't look like this umn.edu patch introduced a bug.
> >
> > I haven't seen any bugs introduced by the media patches from umn.edu.
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I also double-checked all media revert patches from:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git
> umn.edu-reverts
>
> currently on this patch:
> 6f4747a872ad Revert "ethtool: fix a potential missing-check bug"
>
> That's a summary of what I found:
>
> All of those should be dropped from your tree:
>
> 84fdb5856edd Revert "media: si2165: fix a missing check of
> return value"
> 867043f2206e Revert "media: video-mux: fix null pointer
> dereferences"
> 78ae4b621297 Revert "media: cx231xx: replace BUG_ON with
> recovery code"
> 5be328a55817 Revert "media: saa7146: Avoid using BUG_ON as an
> assertion"
> 81ce83158d22 Revert "media: davinci/vpfe_capture.c: Avoid
> BUG_ON for register failure"
> 3319b39504b8 Revert "media: media/saa7146: fix incorrect
> assertion in saa7146_buffer_finish"
> b393f7cb29a2 Revert "media: rcar-vin: Fix a reference count
> leak."
> 197bc5d03682 Revert "media: rcar-vin: Fix a reference count
> leak."
> 2fd9cf68bbb6 Revert "media: rockchip/rga: Fix a reference count
> leak."
> d1e4614eca24 Revert "media: platform: fcp: Fix a reference
> count leak."
> 416e8a6ae07f Revert "media: camss: Fix a reference count leak."
> 06b793ae497b Revert "media: s5p-mfc: Fix a reference count
> leak"
> 8f9fc14a7cc9 Revert "media: stm32-dcmi: Fix a reference count
> leak"
> 556e1f86ba24 Revert "media: ti-vpe: Fix a missing check and
> reference count leak"
> 5f5b1722ad0d Revert "media: exynos4-is: Fix a reference count
> leak"
> f4c758c6c1cb Revert "media: exynos4-is: Fix a reference count
> leak due to pm_runtime_get_sync"
> beb717878c73 Revert "media: exynos4-is: Fix several reference
> count leaks due to pm_runtime_get_sync
> 7066ec748bfd Revert "media: sti: Fix reference count leaks"
> cdd117093b19 Revert "media: st-delta: Fix reference count leak
> in delta_run_work"
>
> As, after my re-check, they all seem to be addressing real issues. So,
> NACK on those.
>
> This patch (073/190):
>
> 899ab4671bc0 Revert "media: rcar_drif: fix a memory disclosure"
>
> While it doesn't hurt, it is useless, as the media core already
> prevents memory disclosure. So, it should be reverted.
>
> So, for patch 073/190:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
I agree, this patch should be reverted.
Reviewed-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
