linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix error handling in init_hugetlbfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <befca227-cb8a-8f47-617d-e3bf9972bfec@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:36:37 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     cgxu519@...ernel.net, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix error handling in init_hugetlbfs_fs()

On 10/29/19 3:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:47:38 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>> It is assumed that the hugetlbfs_vfsmount[] array will contain
>> either a valid vfsmount pointer or NULL for each hstate after
>> initialization.  Changes made while converting to use fs_context
>> broke this assumption.
>>
>> While fixing the hugetlbfs_vfsmount issue, it was discovered that
>> init_hugetlbfs_fs never did correctly clean up when encountering
>> a vfs mount error.
> 
> What were the user-visible runtime effects of this bug?
> 
> (IOW: why does it warrant the cc:stable?)

On second thought, let's not cc stable.

It was found during code inspection.  A small memory allocation failure
would be the most likely cause of taking a error path with the bug.  This
is unlikely to happen as this is early init code.

Sorry about that,
-- 
Mike Kravetz