linux-kernel - Re: fs: GPF in bd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Zi0f7bqND2wwpok_tGkGsOjuVOQ9FM1Y+gFbBn5_9aog@mail.gmail.com>
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?