linux-kernel - Re: tmpfs: fixups to use of the new mount API

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:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:13:47 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: tmpfs: fixups to use of the new mount API

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:

> Several fixups to shmem_parse_param() and tmpfs use of new mount API:
> 
> mm/shmem.c manages filesystem named "tmpfs": revert "shmem" to "tmpfs"
> in its mount error messages.
> 
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled has valid options
> "deny" and "force", but they are not valid as tmpfs "huge" options.
> 
> The "size" param is an alternative to "nr_blocks", and needs to be
> recognized as changing max_blocks.  And where there's ambiguity, it's
> better to mention "size" than "nr_blocks" in messages, since "size" is
> the variant shown in /proc/mounts.
> 
> shmem_apply_options() left ctx->mpol as the new mpol, so then it was
> freed in shmem_free_fc(), and the filesystem went on to use-after-free.
> 
> shmem_parse_param() issue "tmpfs: Bad value for '%s'" messages just
> like fs_parse() would, instead of a different wording.  Where config
> disables "mpol" or "huge", say "tmpfs: Unsupported parameter '%s'".

Is this

Fixes: 144df3b288c41 ("vfs: Convert ramfs, shmem, tmpfs, devtmpfs, rootfs to use the new mount API")?

and a Cc:stable is appropriate?