linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] carl9170: fix debugfs crashes

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: <87d1k17idx.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:54:18 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
        Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] carl9170: fix debugfs crashes

Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 09:43:02PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>> Ben Greear reported:
>> > I see lots of instability as soon as I load up the carl9710 NIC.
>> > My application is going to be poking at it's debugfs files...
>> >
>> > BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in carl9170_debugfs_read+0xd5/0x2a0
>> > [carl9170] at addr ffff8801bc1208b0
>> > Read of size 8 by task btserver/5888
>> > =======================================================================
>> > BUG kmalloc-256 (Tainted: G        W      ): kasan: bad access detected
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > INFO: Allocated in seq_open+0x50/0x100 age=2690 cpu=2 pid=772
>> >...
>> 
>> This breakage was caused by the introduction of intermediate
>> fops in debugfs by commit 9fd4dcece43a
>> ("debugfs: prevent access to possibly dead file_operations at file open")
>
> Because of this, these should all be backported to 4.7-stable, and
> 4.8-stable, right?

Via which tree should these go, Greg's or mine?

-- 
Kalle Valo