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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <2587412f-454d-472c-84b3-d7b9776a105a@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 09:58:37 -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 09:47, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:40:35AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 09:31, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>>> A revert is justified when a series of patches is buggy and had
>>> insufficient review prior to merging.
>>
>> That's not how Linux kernel development works. If a bug can get fixed
>> easily, a fix is preferred instead of reverting + reapplying a patch.
> 
> Your original "fix" is not right, and it wasn't properly tested.  Commit
> 54cbc058d86beca3515c994039b5c0f0a34f53dd needs to be reverted.

As I explained before, the above reply is not sufficiently detailed to
motivate a revert.

Bart.