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: <707dd64fa75fbc922cf921be46e7cf023d8bac59.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 20:37:02 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "mehdi.benhadjkhelifa@...il.com" <mehdi.benhadjkhelifa@...il.com>
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>,
        "syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com"
	<syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev_super()
 failure

On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 22:19 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
> 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.
> 

OK. Sounds good.

> 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?
> 

I think it's good to have it.

> 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?

So, we haven't syzbot report for the case of HFS+. However, you can consider me
as reporter of the potential issue for HFS+ case. And I assume that Fixes tag
should be different for the case of HFS+. Potentially, we could miss the Fixes
tag for the case of HFS+ if you don't know what should be used as Fixes tag
here.

Thanks,
Slava.

> >