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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YzyfM1rJrmT1Qe4N@codewreck.org> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 06:01:39 +0900 From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux_oss@...debyte.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, syzbot+67d13108d855f451cafc@...kaller.appspotmail.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, ericvh@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, lucho@...kov.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "9p: p9_client_create: use p9_client_destroy on failure" Dan Carpenter wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 04:10:44PM +0300: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:37:55PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Rely on proper unwind order. > > > > This reverts commit 3ff51294a05529d0baf6d4b2517e561d12efb9f9. > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+67d13108d855f451cafc@...kaller.appspotmail.com > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> > > The commit message doesn't really say what the problem is to the user. > Is this just to make the next patch easier? Yes (and perhaps a bit of spite from the previous discussion), and the next patch was not useable so I am not applying this as is. The next patch was meant as an alternative implementation to this fix: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220928221923.1751130-1-asmadeus@codewreck.org/T/#u At this point I have the original fix in my -next branch but it hasn't had any positive review (and well, I myself agree it's ugly), so unless Leon sends a v2 I'll need to think of a better way of tracking if clnt->trans_mod->create has been successfully called. I'm starting to think that since we don't have so many clnt I can probably just fit a bool/bitfield in one of the holes of the struct and just keep track of it; that'll be less error-prone than relying on clnt->trans (which -is- initialized in create() most of the time, but not in a way we can rely on) or reworking create() to return it as I originally wanted to do (rdma still needs to populate clnt->trans behind the scenees before create() returns, so the abstraction is also quite ugly) The current breakage is actually quite bad so I'll try to send that today or tomorrow for merging next week unless Leon resends something we can work with... Conceptually won't be different than the patch currently in next so hopefully can pretend it's had a couple of weeks of testing... -- Dominique
Powered by blists - more mailing lists