linux-kernel - Re: memory leak in do_epoll

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: <BF300751-7758-4FDE-AB54-9D25974DC873@iscas.ac.cn>
Date:   Sat, 20 May 2023 12:42:23 +0800
From:   范俊杰 <junjie2020@...as.ac.cn>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: memory leak in do_epoll_create

Thank you for your response. This is my first time submitting crashes to kernel developers, so forgive me if there are any shortcomings. In my opinion, some of the code crashes in the old version may also be present in the new version. That’s why I want to report these crash to you. I will take note of the issues you mentioned and make a meaningful contribution by submitting valid kernel errors next time.!
Sincerely!
> 2023年5月20日 02:57，Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> 写道：
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 04:30:26PM +0800, 范俊杰 wrote:
>> Hi Kernel maintainers,
>> 
>> Our tool found a new bug memory leak in do_epoll_create in Kernel commit
>> v5.14.
>> 
> 
> v5.14 is almost 2 years old.  Why are you testing such an old kernel version?
> This bug could have already been fixed almost 2 years ago.
> 
> Also, if you think this is a bug in eventpoll, this report should be sent to
> linux-fsdevel, as per './scripts/get_maintainer.pl fs/eventpoll.c'.  It's
> unclear why you are sending this report to linux-scsi.
> 
>> The report is as below and this bug don't have a repro C program until
>> now. Please inform me if you confirm this is a reproducible bug.
> 
> I think you answered your own question.  It doesn't have a reproducer;
> therefore, it's not reproducible.
> 
> - Eric