[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240327115328.22c5b5a3@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:53:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Eric Van Hensbergen" <eric.vanhensbergen@...ux.dev>
Cc: asmadeus@...ewreck.org, "Lizhi Xu" <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>,
syzbot+7a3d75905ea1a830dbe5@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux_oss@...debyte.com, lucho@...kov.net, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, regressions@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] fs/9p: fix uaf in in v9fs_stat2inode_dotl
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:13:12 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:26:07 +0000 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> > Patch is in the unapplied portion of my for-next tree along with
> > another one. I was hoping to hear some feedback on the other one
> > before i did a pull request and was torn on whether or not I wait on
> > -rc1 to send since we are so close.
>
> My guess would be that quite a few folks use 9p for in-VM kernel
> testing. Real question is how many actually update their work tree
> before -rc1 or even -rc2, given the anticipated merge window code
> instability.. so maybe there's no extreme urgency?
>
> From netdev's perspective, FWIW, it'd be great if the fix reached
> Linux before Thursday, which is when we will forward our tree again.
Any progress on getting the fix to Linus? I didn't spot it getting
merged.
I'm a bit surprised there aren't more people complaining TBH
I'd have thought any CI setup with KASAN enabled has a good
chance of hitting this..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists