linux-kernel - Re: memory leak in kobject_set_name

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:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 19:29:16 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     syzbot <syzbot+ad8ca40ecd77896d51e2@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, luciano.coelho@...el.com,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: memory leak in kobject_set_name_vargs (2)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:26 PM syzbot
<syzbot+ad8ca40ecd77896d51e2@...kaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>
> syzbot has bisected this bug to:
>
> commit 0e034f5c4bc408c943f9c4a06244415d75d7108c
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date:   Wed May 18 18:51:25 2016 +0000
>
>      iwlwifi: fix mis-merge that breaks the driver

While this bisection looks more likely than the other syzbot entry
that bisected to a version change, I don't think it is correct eitger.

The bisection ended up doing a lot of "git bisect skip" because of the

    undefined reference to `nf_nat_icmp_reply_translation'

issue. Also, the memory leak doesn't seem to be entirely reliable:
when the bisect does 10 runs to verify that some test kernel is bad,
there are a couple of cases where only one or two of the ten run
failed.

Which makes me wonder if one or two of the "everything OK" runs were
actually buggy, but just happened to have all ten pass...

               Linus