linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/125] 4.9.220-rc1 review

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: <a4c8ab22-6e93-9b94-f29e-2d8c1ae1d1f2@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 03:26:23 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/125] 4.9.220-rc1 review

On 4/23/20 1:02 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:54:02PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:34:30PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:55:17AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.220 release.
>>>> There are 125 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>>> let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Responses should be made by Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:48:23 +0000.
>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see a number of unit test crashes in ppc images. Looks like UAF.
>>> This affects 4.4.y, 4.9.y, and 4.14.y. I'll bisect.
>>>
>>
>> Bisect log attached. I suspect the real culprit is commit a4f91f0de905
>> ("of: unittest: clean up changeset test"), or at least it changes the
>> code enough for the offending patch not to work in v4.14.y and older.
>> Either case, reverting upstream commit b3fb36ed694b ("of: unittest:
>> kmemleak on changeset destroy") fixes the problem and thus needs to
>> be dropped from v4.4.y, v4.9.y, and v4.14.y.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped it from all of those trees.
> 

Did you (or do you plan to) push the updated branches ? My builders
didn't pick it up yet.

Guenter