Re: [PATCH 059/190] Revert "RDMA/srpt: Remove unnecessary assertion in srpt_queue_response"

[Bart Van Assche]

On 4/21/21 7:05 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:02:47AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:58:54PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 9f48db0d4a08624bb9ba847ea40c8abad753b396.
> > >
> > > 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: https
> > > Cc: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 2 ++
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > I think this one is fine
>
> Sorry, I realize that is unclear. I mean I don't see a reason to
> revert this patch.

Greg, I share Jason's opinion and would like to see this revert dropped. 
The function srpt_queue_response() dereferences the 'ch' pointer before 
the BUG_ON(ch) statement is reached. I think this makes the BUG_ON() 
statement that would be reintroduced by this revert superfluous.

Thanks,

Bart.