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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <830d05e6-9117-424f-9a94-25c358d087c7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 22:57:41 +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>,
 "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 12/1/25 9:37 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> 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.
> 
Okay I will add it to both patches

>> 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.
> 
I will make sure to adjust the patches's descriptions as you have 
suggested and I will be sending them tonight or early next morning.
> Thanks,
> Slava.
> 
Best Regards,
Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa

>>>