linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] inotify: Convert to using per-namespace limits

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: <87y3zpdddt.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:50:38 +1300
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] inotify: Convert to using per-namespace limits

Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com> writes:

> On  8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>>> resolved.
>> 
>> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
>> your patch in the hopes of merging it.
>> 
>> Did you happen to see the kbuild test roboot boot failures and did you
>> happen to look into what caused them?  I have just skimmed them and it
>> appears to be related to your patch.
>
> I saw them in the beginning but they did look like a generic memory
> corruption and I believe at the time those patches were submitted there
> was a lingering memory corruption hitting various patches. Thus I didn't
> think it was related to my patches. I've since left my work so been
> taking a bit of time off and haven't looked really hard, so those
> patches have been kind of lingering.

Fair enough.  I generally give the kbuild folks the benefit of the doubt
as they try hard to avoid false positives.

> But now that you mention it I will try and take a second look to see
> what might cause the memory corruption? Is there a way to force 0day to
> re-run them to see whether the failure was indeed caused by my patches
> or were intermittent?

Good question.  I will push the patch to my for-testing branch and see
if any problems show up.

That plus I will read through your patch and make certain I can
understand what is going on.

Eric