linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 15/59] struct filename: saner handling of long names

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260113153953.GN3634291@ZenIV>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:39:53 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, mjguzik@...il.com,
	paul@...l-moore.com, axboe@...nel.dk, audit@...r.kernel.org,
	io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/59] struct filename: saner handling of long names

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:31:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> I'm seeing a regression in -next in the execveat kselftest which bisects
> to 2a0db5f7653b ("struct filename: saner handling of long names").  The
> test triggers two new failures with very long filenames for tests that
> previously succeeded:
> 
> # # Failed to open length 4094 filename, errno=36 (File name too long)
> # # Invoke exec via root_dfd and relative filename
> # # child execveat() failed, rc=-1 errno=36 (File name too long)
> # # child 9501 exited with 36 neither 99 nor 99
> # not ok 48 Check success of execveat(8, 'opt/kselftest/exec/x...yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy', 0)... 
> # # Failed to open length 4094 filename, errno=36 (File name too long)
> # # Invoke script via root_dfd and relative filename
> # # child execveat() failed, rc=-1 errno=36 (File name too long)
> # # child 9502 exited with 36 neither 127 nor 126
> # not ok 49 Check success of execveat(8, 'opt/kselftest/exec/x...yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy', 0)... 

Could you check if replacing (in include/linux/fs.h)

#define EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX       192 - sizeof(struct __filename_head)

with

#define EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX       (192 - sizeof(struct __filename_head))

is sufficient for fixing that reproducer?