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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:43:11 +0200 From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Cc: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: fs: GPF in bd_mount On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:06:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > >> Said that, I'm not sure why mount_pseudo() would be returning any errors; >> rejection should happen in the caller (due to MS_NOUSER in the flags), but >> I don't understand what would trigger it on mount_pseudo() level... > > I see what's going on, but I wonder if sget() is the right place for userns > checks... FWIW, the upstream patch fixes the crash for me. Do I understand it correctly that there is no perfect branch for such testing (testing that aims at catching regressions asap and not reporting what's already fixed)? Both mainline and linux-next miss some fixes and functionality that is present on the other branch, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists