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  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, 12 Jun 2020 12:46:25 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <>,
        Al Viro <>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Alexey Gladkov <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] proc fixes v2 for v5.8-rc1

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:34 PM Eric W. Biederman
<> wrote:
> (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

What happened to that first version of the email? I never got it..

> Looking at the code the fsnotify watch should have been removed by
> fsnotify_sb_delete in generic_shutdown_super.

Hmm. Correct. The new_inode_pseudo() is for things that don't have
quotas, fsnotify or writeback.

That was used somewhat intentionally on /proc, though. /proc certainly
doesn't have quotas or writeback.

And fsnotify on /proc seems a bit questionably too. Do people actually
_do_ this and depend on it, or is this just about syzbot doing
something odd and thus showing the problem?

Anyway, I have pulled your fix, because I think it's reasonable and
safe, but I do wonder if we should have kept the new_inode_pseudo(),
and instead just make fsnotify say "you can't notify on an inode that
isn't on the superblock list". Hmm?

Is fsnotify on /proc really sensible? Do we actually generate any
useful notifications?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists