Re: [PATCH 5.4] smb3: fix problem with null cifs super block with previous patch

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 04:34:00PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05 2023, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:57:09PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >> From: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
> >>
> >> [ Upstream commit 87f93d82e0952da18af4d978e7d887b4c5326c0b ]
> >>
> >> Add check for null cifs_sb to create_options helper
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Only compile-tested. This was discovered by our static code analysis
> >> tool. I do not use CIFS and do not know how to actually reproduce the
> >> NULL dereference.
> >>
> >> Follow up from [0]. Original patch is at [1].
> >>
> >> Mandatory text due to licensing terms:
> >>
> >> This bug was discovered and resolved using Coverity Static Analysis
> >> Security Testing (SAST) by Synopsys, Inc.
> >
> > What?  That's funny.  And nothing I'm going to be adding to the
> > changelog text, sorry, as that's not what is upstream.
> 
> That is fine by me. I placed this text below the 3 dashed lines so it
> does _not_ end up in the commit message, but still discloses this
> information.
> 
> > Please go poke your lawyers, that's not ok.
> 
> Yes, perhaps I should. But let's go forward with this patch since it
> keeps the original commit message?

It's already been queued up, you should have gotten an email saying
that, right?

thanks,

greg k-h