linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] securityfs: fix missing of d_delete() in securityfs

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: <20250512222409.GD2023217@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 23:24:09 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: alexjlzheng@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
	greg@...ah.com, chrisw@...l.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] securityfs: fix missing of d_delete() in
 securityfs_remove()

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 12:46 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 05:37:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 04:23:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have fixes for some of that crap done on top of tree-in-dcache series;
> > > > give me an hour or two and I'll separate those and rebase to mainline...
> > >
> > > Completely untested:
> > > git://git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git #untested.securityfs
> > >
> > > on top of v6.15-rc5.  And I'm serious about the "untested" part - it builds
> > > with allmodconfig, but that's all I've checked.  So treat that as an outline
> > > of what could be done, but don't use as-is without serious testing.
> >
> > PS: I'm really, really serious - do not use without a serious review; this
> > is a rebase of a branch last touched back in March and it was a part of
> > long tail, with pretty much zero testing even back then.
> >
> > Patches are simple enough to have a chance to be somewhere in the vicinity
> > of being correct, but that's all I can promise.
> 
> Fair enough, although unfortunately I don't think anyone has anything
> close to a securityfs test suite so I suspect this may languish on the
> lists for a bit unless someone has the cycles to pick it up and
> properly test it.
> 
> I haven't compared the patches you posted on-list with the stuff in
> the tree above, but based on the timestamps I'm guessing the on-list
> patches are simply the ones from the tree above?

git format-patch output for that branch...