[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLSmJv9AstzsgSscrv-wA7FwfrxAKRxj-FVBmihQvnj1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:01:40 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc: David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, paolo.valente@...aro.org
Subject: Re: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko
<oleksandr@...alenko.name> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Ätvrtek 12. dubna 2018 20:44:37 CEST Kees Cook wrote:
>> My first bisect attempt gave me commit 5448aca41cd5 ("null_blk: wire
>> up timeouts"), which seems insane given that null_blk isn't even built
>> in the .config. I managed to get the testing automated now for a "git
>> bisect run ...", so I'm restarting again to hopefully get a better
>> answer. Normally the Oops happens in the first minute of running. I've
>> set the timeout to 10 minutes for a "good" run...
>
> Apparently, you do this on Linus' tree, right? If so, I won't compile it here
> then.
Actually, I didn't test Linus's tree, but I can do that after the most
recent bisect finishes... I'm just trying to find where it went wrong
in 4.16.
> Thanks for taking care of this.
Thanks for building the reproducer! :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists