linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/aio: fix uaf in sys_io

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 09:15:47 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <ben@...munityfibre.ca>
Cc: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@...com>,
 syzbot+b91eb2ed18f599dd3c31@...kaller.appspotmail.com, brauner@...nel.org,
 jack@...e.cz, linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
 viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/aio: fix uaf in sys_io_cancel

On 3/4/24 09:03, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> This is just so wrong there aren't even words to describe it.  I
> recommending reverting all of Bart's patches since they were not reviewed
> by anyone with a sufficient level of familiarity with fs/aio.c to get it
> right.

Where were you while my patches were posted for review on the fsdevel
mailing list and before these were sent to Linus?

A revert request should include a detailed explanation of why the revert
should happen. Just claiming that something is wrong is not sufficient
to motivate a revert.

Bart.