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: <CAGXu5j+dh1zm32iBjRVh0s+3gLJYgjwt+z1aBJmrK2Cr8XPWnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:47:49 -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 3:01 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko
> <oleksandr@...alenko.name> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On čtvrtek 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...

After fixing up some build issues in the middle of the 4.16 cycle, I
get an unhelpful bisect result of commit 0a4b6e2f80aa ("Merge branch
'for-4.16/block'". Instead of letting the test run longer, I'm going
to switch to doing several shorter test boots per kernel and see if
that helps. One more bisect coming...

>> 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.

FWIW, I see an Oops under Linus's latest tree.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ