linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] blktrace: fix debugfs use after free

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:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:09:17 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        bvanassche@....org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        nstange@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        yukuai3@...wei.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        syzbot+603294af2d01acfdd6da@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] blktrace: fix debugfs use after free

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 11:42:34PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:53:59PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > Feel free to add more comments, but please try to keep them short
> > > and crisp.  At the some point long comments really distract from what
> > > is going on.
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > Come to think of it, given the above, I think we can also do way with
> > the the partition stuff too, and rely on the buts->name too. I'll try
> > this out, and test it.
> 
> Yes, the sg path should work for partitions as well.  That should not
> only simplify the code, but also the comments, we can do something like
> the full patch below (incorporating your original one). 

Indeed I ended up with something similar, will use this variation.

> This doesn't
> include the error check on the creation - I think that check probably
> is a good idea for this case based on the comments in the old patch, but
> also a separate issue that should go into another patch on top.

Makes sense.

  Luis