linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [fs] 45ec18d5c7: BUG: KASAN: user-memory-access on address 00007f90291c7ec0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 08 Aug 2016 12:29:43 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc:	Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>,
	0day robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [fs] 45ec18d5c7: BUG: KASAN: user-memory-access on address 00007f90291c7ec0

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 22:02:42 +0800, kernel test robot said:

> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
> Nicholas-Krause/fs-Fix-kmemleak-leak-warning-in-getname_flags-about-working-on-unitialized-memory/20160804-055054
> commit 45ec18d5c713bccb9807782f0dca29b92ba99784 ("fs:Fix kmemleak leak warning in getname_flags about working on unitialized memory")

The real question here is why the 0day system was even bothering to try
compiling and booting a patch from somebody who has a long record of failing
to do so with patches before submission.  Actually looking at the patch
in question shows that little or no thought or testing was done (hint:
look at it, and wonder in amazement why there's a dump_stack() call where
it is....)

In other words - how did this patch get into a tree that 0day listens to?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped