linux-kernel - Re: [clear_page] 0ad07c8104 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170218144759.bqdy3ugj45uh36zc@pd.tnic>
Date:   Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:48:00 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     LKP <lkp@...org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [clear_page] 0ad07c8104 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL
 pointer dereference at 0000000000000040

Guys,

please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> 
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052

Can you make this point to the actual commit on github?

Your tree there has currently 47K branches and navigating through the
web interface takes forever.

> commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
> Author:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
> Commit:     0day robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
> 
>      x86: Optimize clear_page()
>      
>      Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
>      chosen by the alternatives.
>      
>      What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
>      was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
>      
>      Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
>      significant changes in performance.
> 
>      ...
> 
>      Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

Then, this is an old patch. You already sent me a bug report, I replied
with a fix but you didn't test the fix. Instead you're sending the same
old report.

Here's the fix: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2017-February/005573.html

And the upstream submission of the new version:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170215111927.emdgxf2pide3kwro@pd.tnic

Please fix the bot to pay attention to replies. If there is a special
way I should reply with a fix so that the bot retests with the same
config, please let me know.

In general, I think it would be a very cool idea to be able to reply to
the bot and say, "Dear bot, can you test this fix ontop with the exact
same guest, vm, kernel .config etc.

That would be lovely.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--