linux-kernel - Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in _

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, 16 Mar 2015 21:18:20 +0800
From:	Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@....org>
To:	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: reiserfs: inconsistent format in __RASSERT

On 03/16/2015 09:05 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 3/16/15 8:55 AM, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>> * I missed something in my analysis and in fact the PID argument
>> is processed by reiserfs_panic (don't know where), or * the PID
>> argument is not used and should be removed, or
> 
> This, please. reiserfs_panic calls BUG(), which will contain the PID.

Whoo, thanks for the quick answer.  I will send a patch as soon as possible.

>> * the PID is useful and "[%i]" should be added somewhere in the
>> format string.
> 
>> Which one would you prefer?
> 
>> Also, I found this when building the kernel with "allmodconfig" on 
>> x86_64.  With "defconfig" gcc does not report this error, but I
>> guess it is because without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK, __RASSERT is
>> never used.
> 
> Yeah. If reiserfs was more actively maintained, what is currently
> protected by CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK would be handled a bit better.
> There are ton of fsfuzzer bugs that would be caught by it and should
> be handled using reiserfs_error. Unfortunately, it also enables some
> heavy checks that make the file system very slow.
> 
> Thanks for looking into this. It looks like it's been broken for a
> while. I suppose the only saving grace is that it would crash in a
> path that crashes on purpose a few lines later.

Yes, and this is also why I believe this bug is not a security issue nor
something which needs an urgent fix.

Thanks,

Nicolas
--
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/