linux-kernel - Re: 4.7.0-rc7 ext4 error in dx

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: <20160817232833.GF14651@birch.djwong.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:28:33 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	Török Edwin <edwin@...rok.net>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.7.0-rc7 ext4 error in dx_probe

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:27:25PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2016-08-08 09:28, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:56:34PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:15:48PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/fs/ext4/inode.c?id=b47820edd1634dc1208f9212b7ecfb4230610a23
> >>>>
> >>>> I added the patch, rebuilt and rebooted.  It will take some time
> >>>> before I'll report back since the issue is so hard to reproduce.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW I could trigger it reliably by running a bunch of directory traversal
> >>> programs simultaneously on the same directory.  I have a script that fires
> >>> up multiple mutts pointing to the Maildirs for the high traffic Linux lists.
> >>
> >> Hmm, I wonder if we should request that this patch be backported to
> >> -stable.  Darrick, what do you think?
> > 
> > Seems like an excellent idea.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see 4.7.1. was released, however before testing it in the changelog I can't
> see the inode.c commit with the checksum fix.  Is there another commit that
> would provide an equivalent fix, or is the fix not part of 4.7.1?

There's no 'equivalent' fix; the one we have simply didn't make it
to the stable maintainers before 4.7.1 came out.

(Hey Ted, can you send the patch to ... whomever's in charge of 4.7?)

--D

> 
> Best regards,
> --Edwin