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]
Date:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:50:17 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+5399ed0832693e29f392@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/inode.c:LINE!

On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 14:41 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:12 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:07:15PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'm unable to find a branch matching the line numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > Given that, on the face of it, the scenario is impossible I'm
> > > > seeking clarification on what linux-next to look at for the
> > > > sake of accuracy.
> > > > 
> > > > So I'm wondering if this testing done using the master branch
> > > > or one of the daily branches one would use to check for conflicts
> > > > before posting?
> > > 
> > > Sorry those are tags not branches.
> > 
> > FWIW, that's next-20181214; it is what master had been in mid-December
> > and master is rebased every day.  Can it be reproduced with the current
> > tree?
> 
> From the info on the dashboard we know that it happened only once on
> d14b746c (the second one is result of reproducing the first one). So
> it was either fixed or just hard to trigger.

Looking at the source of tag next-20181214 in linux-next-history I see
this is mistake I made due to incorrect error handling which I fixed
soon after (there was in fact a double iput()).

I'm pretty sure this never made it to a released kernel so unless
there's a report of this in a stable released kernel I'm going to
move on.

Thanks
Ian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists