linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm fixes

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006071146451.3515@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm fixes

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Ho-hum...  Speaking of which, what about leak fixes?  There's a long-standing
> in-core inode leak in jffs2; basically, if you fail directory modification
> in symlink() et.al., you get a leaked inode and whinge at umount.  Found
> after -rc1, had been there since all the way back (similar bug in creat()
> had been fixed in 2003, mkdir()/mknod()/symlink() were not).  Fix sits in
> jffs2-fixes now...

I think a leak that is trivial easily falls under "security issue" as a 
potential DoS issue.

On the other hand, if it's not trivially fixed (say it needs big 
re-organizing of some locking or refcounting or whatever), and it's a 
really slow leak of a pretty small data structure, and is not triggered by 
normal users (say, you need to mount a filesystem or it needs some very 
specific timing), I think it falls under "we haven't seen in the previous 
five years, we might as well make sure the fix is tested in the next merge 
window".

So I think it's a judgement call.

> I can simply pull jffs2-fixes into vfs for-next (I need it in there for
> ->evict_inode() series), but I'd obviously prefer to just rebase it after
> it gets into mainline.

I seem to have a jffs2 pull request that I haven't yet processed, exactly 
because it wasn't clear. It's much bigger than I would have wished for, 
and it's not clear it's all regressions at all.

DavidW? It's

	 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)

and while that's in the size range that I didn't just reject it like the 
drm pull, I still do want to know if that's really just true major 
bugfixes and regressions. We already had a really bad -rc2 release due to 
a tiny and innocent-looking bugfix that turned out to be anything but. I 
do _not_ want to repeat that with -rc3, since I'll be gone.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/