From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.manguebit.org (mx1.manguebit.org [143.255.12.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C448F2248A5; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 01:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=143.255.12.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787880611; cv=none; b=I/Bfr+JgS/ncT4qQC44+hT/i8QU+TywfSCEV1/HOFQG6h2ICORFfTbOG1d44nIkkEBY3g6HR9F5NW7chhUzAotwpTo8lTR2G8yHGrxsFjaj/anGJ3vL2y5eq13YRFyOj9wqePW2zaB2rWissltVeI0uXwLjpDpDVpFcJOfnTQTg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787880611; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kloQV5VWpsLW45WCp/X2bXYyEUkYNMa5T6ZXQXm7sRM=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CSJntX4mtbxvmzapBP7OlPhvZQifDYp2zmoO5IH3Tkvc4vz1ihEdUM6ZlQ5qaiWJTN4G30rg68mCIyhMSOIwwjxt3D0JsoGMtF9ylb85j7iUpZb6VKITPcnhtUfgPa6jeKjmFALDqQ7u2tMTzT4HyEIksDbIxyvO0tfPU5kZBvE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.org header.i=@manguebit.org header.b=4/d3Y7+3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=143.255.12.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.org header.i=@manguebit.org header.b="4/d3Y7+3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manguebit.org; s=dkim; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:References: In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=ryOJJW06S40T9Lc30xfxQOEn+gUpgd3J6/CVPV0KbEM=; b=4/d3Y7+3khIWD2c4wZH/konRC9 wNWXFzvBkpXE6VgmeGb2VKShA8J79mLKmqdY4oonxtU9fLUZBHwZ3nDMQh9dT/lOJbZVFrEb+Y8+I E5XTB+mrVIW0YP1TA7bgHUEPP/94DVi3UuR9+yoqXGnpAj6BMAqv4SOuTkCAWYqvFkUS3NBQXzLuS IeUEdWytMoocnW6GRVBghCsuBGuqIyKvDlQt5x9Q99f7j9At4EKQU/VV7QQHqGJIE9ITqW14m2ZFp TLEI90OBP9dfkOMWgEFyd0tJCuNLSjhT+yW+nn+NuQSwsJ2/zpfylFByjcTjMXXytLdljZf88OVMh 54i9X+vw==; Received: from pc by mx1.manguebit.org with local (Exim 4.99.5) id 1wzlPz-000000008yh-1M5R; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:30:07 -0300 Message-ID: <61168e3b796d424af9612ad9619ae95b@manguebit.org> From: Paulo Alcantara To: sorenson@redhat.com, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org Cc: linkinjeon@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] smb: client: tighten validate_t2() offset bounds against actual buffer size In-Reply-To: <8b7e30ff-fbd9-499e-b371-725c7b85a189@redhat.com> References: <20260825030948.3577275-1-sorenson@redhat.com> <8b7e30ff-fbd9-499e-b371-725c7b85a189@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:30:06 -0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Frank Sorenson writes: > On 8/26/26 6:03 PM, Paulo Alcantara wrote: >> Besides all these LLM-generated messages and comments, would you have a >> reproducer or a real use case that would require such changes? > > I just want to apologize for going so far overboard. I identified a > potential type of issue, and then kept expanding the scope without > finding a concrete problem or reproducer. That's a definite > overcorrection; I tried to fix things that have no known impact in > practice ('malicious SMB1 server' is a pretty weak threat). > > And as you noted, I relied too heavily on AI assistance; that's on > me. I'll be more careful about both the scope of what I do and how > I get there. > > I'll obviously withdraw this Oh Frank, that's fine. No worries. My only concern is that this SMB1 code, and as much as we can avoid it, the better. The bugs are still valid to be reviewed and fixed, whether we like it or not. If we could have reproducers or any other way to validate them, great. Otherwise, it's fine too -- we can fix any regressions later. A few days ago we were struggling with getting diretory listing fixed against Windows XP server because of a cleanup patch that touched SMB1 code that had been working for a very long time... I'll help you with that. Great work.