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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 08:21:04 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info> Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev Subject: Re: Observation of a memory leak with commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support") On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 15:02:23 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 09.01.22 22:20, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:48:46 +0100 Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > >> Dear Rao and David, > >> > >> > >> In our syzkaller instance running on linux-next, > >> https://elisa-builder-00.iol.unh.edu/syzkaller-next/, we have been > >> observing a memory leak in prepare_creds, > >> https://elisa-builder-00.iol.unh.edu/syzkaller-next/report?id=1dcac8539d69ad9eb94ab2c8c0d99c11a0b516a3, > >> for quite some time. > >> > >> It is reproducible on v5.15-rc1, v5.15, v5.16-rc8 and next-20220104. > >> So, it is in mainline, was released and has not been fixed in > >> linux-next yet. > >> > >> As syzkaller also provides a reproducer, we bisected this memory leak > >> to be introduced with commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB > >> support"). > >> > >> We also tested that reverting this commit on torvalds' current tree > >> made the memory leak with the reproducer go away. > >> > >> Could you please have a look how your commit introduces this memory > >> leak? We will gladly support testing your fix in case help is needed. > > > > Let's test the regression/bug report tracking bot :) > > > > #regzbot introduced: 314001f0bf92 > > Great, thx for trying, you only did a small mistake: it lacked a caret > (^) before the "introduced", which would have told regzbot that the > parent mail (the one you quoted) is the one containing the report (which > later is linked in patch descriptions of fixes and allows rezgbot to > connect things). That's why regzbot now thinks you reported the issue > and looks out for patches and commits that link to your mail. :-/ > > Don't worry, I just added it properly and now mark this as duplicate: > > #regzbot dup-of: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKXUXMzZkQvHJ35nwVhcJe%2BDrtEXGw%2BeKGVD04=xRJkVUC2sPA@mail.gmail.com/ > > Thx again for trying. Ah, thanks for the fix up, I copy/pasted the example with the hash and forgot about the caret. > I wonder if this mistake could be avoided. I came up with one idea while > walking the dog: > > * if there is *no* parent mail, then "regzbot introduce" could consider > the current mail as the report > > * if there *is* a parent mail, then "regzbot introduce" could consider > the parent as the report > > Then regzbot would have done the right thing in this case. But there is > a "but": I wonder if such an approach would be too much black magic that > confuses more than it helps. What do you think? IMHO heuristics may do more harm than good. At least for maintainers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists