linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev

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: <2795a339-dc82-4a1e-8c97-87dd131a631f@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 22:19:59 +0100
From: Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa <mehdi.benhadjkhelifa@...il.com>
To: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>,
 "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "khalid@...nel.org" <khalid@...nel.org>,
 "frank.li@...o.com" <frank.li@...o.com>,
 "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "slava@...eyko.com" <slava@...eyko.com>,
 "david.hunter.linux@...il.com" <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
 <linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
 "skhan@...uxfoundation.org" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
 "glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de" <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 "syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com"
 <syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev_super()
 failure

On 12/1/25 8:24 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-29 at 13:48 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
>> On 11/27/25 9:19 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>>
> 
> <skipped>
> 
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, the situation is improving with the patches. I can say that
>>> patches have been tested and I am ready to pick up the patches into HFS/HFS+
>>> tree.
>>>
>>> Mehdi, should I expect the formal patches from you? Or should I take the patches
>>> as it is?
>>>
>>
>> I can send them from my part. Should I add signed-off-by tag at the end
>> appended to them?
>>
> 
> If you are OK with the current commit message, then I can simply add your
> signed-off-by tag on my side. If you would like to polish the commit message
> somehow, then I can wait the patches from you. So, what is your decision?
> 
I would like to send patches from my part as a v3. Mainly so that it's 
more clear in the mailing list what has happened and maybe add a cover 
letter to suggest that other filesystems could be affected too. If that 
is not preferred, It's okay if you just add my signed-off-by tag. Commit 
message for me seems descriptive enough as it is.

Also I wanted to ask 2 questions here:

1. Is adding the cc for stable here recommended so that this fix get 
backported into older stable kernel?

2. Is it normal to have the Reported-by and Fixes tag for the hfsplus 
patch even though the reported bug is for HFS? I guess it's under the 
same of the discovered HFS bug so it references that?
>>
>> Also, I want to give an apologies for the delayed/none reply about the
>> crash of xfstests on my part. I went back testing them 3 days earlier
>> and they started showing different results again and then I have broken
>> my finger....Which caused me to have much slower progress.I'm still
>> working on getting the same crashes as I did before where I get them
>> when running any test.Because I ran quick tests and they didn't crash.
>> only with auto around the 631 test for desktop and around 642 on my
>> laptop for both not patched and patched kernels.I'm going to update you
>> on that matter when I can have predictable behavior and cause of the
>> crash/call stack.But expect slow progress from my part here for the
>> reason I mentionned before.
>>
> 
> No problem. Take your time.
> 
Thanks !
> Thanks,
> Slava.
> 
Best Regards,
Mehdi Ben Hadj khelifa

>>