Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:33:39 + Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +, Al Viro wrote: > > > I'll cook the minimal fixup for API change after I get some sleep and > > send it your way, unless somebody gets there first... > > This should do it - switches

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

> BTW, could you put the current state of the docs someplace public? The documentation will eventually end up in Documentation/filesystems/orangefs.txt. This part about the creation of the shared memory between userspace and the kernel module seems complete and accurate to me so far. This

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:25:17AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > I'm the Orangefs guy... > > If the orangefs warnings that people see because of what's in > linux-next is annoying, I could focus on quieting them down... See the fixup just posted in this thread. > We've been focusing on code

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +, Al Viro wrote: > I'll cook the minimal fixup for API change after I get some sleep and > send it your way, unless somebody gets there first... This should do it - switches ->ioctl() to pvfs2_inode_[gs]etxattr() and converts xattr_handler ->[gs]et() to

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

I'm the Orangefs guy... If the orangefs warnings that people see because of what's in linux-next is annoying, I could focus on quieting them down... We've been focusing on code review and documentation ever since our last big exchange with Al and Linus... -Mike On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:28 AM,

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:19:48 + Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:16:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > So could you please remove the 4.5 stuff from your for-next branch > > until after the merge window closes. > > Done. Thanks. > > Also, I noticed these new

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:16:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:43:30 + Al Viro wrote: > > > > dax_io fix isn't there, neither is overlayfs magic.h patch - both are > > already in other trees. I would like to get xattr series in as well, > > but that's

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:43:30 + Al Viro wrote: > > dax_io fix isn't there, neither is overlayfs magic.h patch - both are > already in other trees. I would like to get xattr series in as well, > but that's a separate pull request, if you'd accept them in this window in > the first

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:19:48 + Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:16:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > So could you please remove the 4.5 stuff from your for-next branch > > until after the merge window closes. > > Done. Thanks. > >

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:16:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:43:30 + Al Viro wrote: > > > > dax_io fix isn't there, neither is overlayfs magic.h patch - both are > > already in other trees. I would like to get xattr series in

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

> BTW, could you put the current state of the docs someplace public? The documentation will eventually end up in Documentation/filesystems/orangefs.txt. This part about the creation of the shared memory between userspace and the kernel module seems complete and accurate to me so far. This

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:25:17AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > I'm the Orangefs guy... > > If the orangefs warnings that people see because of what's in > linux-next is annoying, I could focus on quieting them down... See the fixup just posted in this thread. > We've been focusing on code

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

I'm the Orangefs guy... If the orangefs warnings that people see because of what's in linux-next is annoying, I could focus on quieting them down... We've been focusing on code review and documentation ever since our last big exchange with Al and Linus... -Mike On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:28 AM,

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +, Al Viro wrote: > I'll cook the minimal fixup for API change after I get some sleep and > send it your way, unless somebody gets there first... This should do it - switches ->ioctl() to pvfs2_inode_[gs]etxattr() and converts xattr_handler ->[gs]et() to

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:33:39 + Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +, Al Viro wrote: > > > I'll cook the minimal fixup for API change after I get some sleep and > > send it your way, unless somebody gets there first... > > This should

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi Al, On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:43:30 + Al Viro wrote: > > dax_io fix isn't there, neither is overlayfs magic.h patch - both are > already in other trees. I would like to get xattr series in as well, > but that's a separate pull request, if you'd accept them in this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:36:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > Linus, what would be your preference wrt that stuff? > > If you can just create a branch with the stuff that is obvious and > clearly worth it (ie stuff that would basically

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > Linus, what would be your preference wrt that stuff? If you can just create a branch with the stuff that is obvious and clearly worth it (ie stuff that would basically be stable material anyway), I'll just merge it. Assuming it's all done in

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:56:47AM +, Al Viro wrote: > s/developed/rebased/, actually, but... point taken. Mea culpa, and what > to do with those patches is for you to decide; some of those are simply > -stable fodder and probably ought to go one-by-one at any point you would > consider

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 09:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > although I don't think I saw a confirmation that that was what Sasha > actually hit (but Sasha had narrowed it down to DAX, so it looks > possible/likely) Yup, that indeed fixed the problem I was seeing. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 08:06 PM, Al Viro wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: Queued up. Unless Al objects, it'll be part of the 'for-linus' pull later this week. Reported-by: Sasha Levin Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 4.0+ probably ought to be there... Agree, done.

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > Queued up. Unless Al objects, it'll be part of the 'for-linus' pull > later this week. Reported-by: Sasha Levin Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 4.0+ probably ought to be there... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 06:21:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Al, looking at the most recent linux-next, most of the vfs commits > there seem to be committed in the last day or two. I'm getting the > feeling that that is all 4.5 material by now. > > Should I just take the iov patch as-is,

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:41 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: How are we going to handle that one?

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Al, ping? >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> >> >> >> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Al, ping? > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: > >> > >> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull > >> request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> >> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull >> request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to take it >> via the block tree, I'll

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Al, ping? >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> >> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull >> request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:41 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Al, ping? > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: > >> > >> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: Al, ping? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:36:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > Linus, what would be your preference wrt that stuff? > > If you can just create a branch with the stuff that is obvious and > clearly worth it (ie

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 06:21:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Al, looking at the most recent linux-next, most of the vfs commits > there seem to be committed in the last day or two. I'm getting the > feeling that that is all 4.5 material by now. > > Should I just take the iov patch as-is,

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > Queued up. Unless Al objects, it'll be part of the 'for-linus' pull > later this week. Reported-by: Sasha Levin Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 4.0+ probably ought to be there... -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 08:06 PM, Al Viro wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: Queued up. Unless Al objects, it'll be part of the 'for-linus' pull later this week. Reported-by: Sasha Levin Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 4.0+ probably ought to be

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/10/2015 09:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > although I don't think I saw a confirmation that that was what Sasha > actually hit (but Sasha had narrowed it down to DAX, so it looks > possible/likely) Yup, that indeed fixed the problem I was seeing. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:56:47AM +, Al Viro wrote: > s/developed/rebased/, actually, but... point taken. Mea culpa, and what > to do with those patches is for you to decide; some of those are simply > -stable fodder and probably ought to go one-by-one at any point you would > consider

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > Linus, what would be your preference wrt that stuff? If you can just create a branch with the stuff that is obvious and clearly worth it (ie stuff that would basically be stable material anyway), I'll just merge it.

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/05/2015 08:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to take it via the block tree, I'll be glad to leave it for him to

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 11/05/2015 08:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to take it via the block tree, I'll be

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull > request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to take it > via the block tree, I'll be glad to leave it for him to deal with. Put it in the vfs tree (I'm

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:34:02AM +, Al Viro wrote: > Could you try to reproduce it with this: > > dax_io(): don't let non-error value escape via retval instead of EFAULT > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro > --- > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > index a86d3cc..7b653e9 100644 > --- a/fs/dax.c >

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:30:17PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > So I've traced this all the way back to dax_io(). I can trigger this with: > > > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > > index 93bf2f9..2cdb8a5 100644 > > --- a/fs/dax.c > > +++ b/fs/dax.c > > @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ static ssize_t

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:30:17PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > So I've traced this all the way back to dax_io(). I can trigger this with: > > > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > > index 93bf2f9..2cdb8a5 100644 > > --- a/fs/dax.c > > +++ b/fs/dax.c > > @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ static ssize_t

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:34:02AM +, Al Viro wrote: > Could you try to reproduce it with this: > > dax_io(): don't let non-error value escape via retval instead of EFAULT > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro > --- > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > index a86d3cc..7b653e9

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull > request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to take it > via the block tree, I'll be glad to leave it for him to deal with. Put

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 10/18/2015 12:17 AM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > I'll try and find time to look at this issue this week. Sasha, do you have a > more targeted reproducer, or is still just the trinity fuzzer? Nope, I haven't looked at it much beyond looking into dax_io(). Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 10/18/2015 12:17 AM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > I'll try and find time to look at this issue this week. Sasha, do you have a > more targeted reproducer, or is still just the trinity fuzzer? Nope, I haven't looked at it much beyond looking into dax_io(). Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:22:19PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/30/2015 05:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: > or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more > > than 'count'. > >>> Was there DAX

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 09/30/2015 05:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more > than 'count'. >>> Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), >>> which takes

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:22:19PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/30/2015 05:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: > or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more > > than 'count'. > >>> Was there DAX

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 09/30/2015 05:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more > than 'count'. >>> Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), >>> which takes

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: >>> or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more than 'count'. >> Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), >> which takes rather different paths in those cases... >> > > So

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 09/17/2015 10:24 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: >>> or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more than 'count'. >> Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), >> which takes rather different paths in those cases... >> > > So

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: >> or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more >> > than 'count'. > Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), > which takes rather different paths in those cases... > So I've traced this all the way back to dax_io(). I

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: >> or mapping->a_ops->direct_IO() returned more >> > than 'count'. > Was there DAX involved? ->direct_IO() in there is blkdev_direct_IO(), > which takes rather different paths in those cases... > So I've traced this all the way back to dax_io(). I

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:18:12PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > >> This bug is similar to recently found bug in 9p: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1931799/focus=1936542 > > Ow. For those who'd missed that fun: the bug in question had

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/19/2015 01:46 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:18:12PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > >> This bug is similar to recently found bug in 9p: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1931799/focus=1936542 > > Ow. For those who'd missed that fun: the bug in question had

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:18:12PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > This bug is similar to recently found bug in 9p: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1931799/focus=1936542 Ow. For those who'd missed that fun: the bug in question had turned out to be caused by improper reuse of

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:18:12PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: This bug is similar to recently found bug in 9p: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1931799/focus=1936542 Ow. For those who'd missed that fun: the bug in question had turned out to be caused by improper reuse of request

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/15/2015 11:13 PM, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:13:24 -0400 > Sasha Levin wrote: > >> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've >> stumbled on the following: >> >> [64092.216447] >>

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On 08/15/2015 11:13 PM, Chuck Ebbert wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:13:24 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've stumbled on the following: [64092.216447]

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:13:24 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've > stumbled on the following: > > [64092.216447] > == > [64092.217840] BUG: KASan: out of bounds on

Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:13:24 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've stumbled on the following: [64092.216447] == [64092.217840] BUG: KASan: out

fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi all, While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've stumbled on the following: [64092.216447] == [64092.217840] BUG: KASan: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance+0x3b7/0x480 at addr

fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance

Hi all, While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running -next I've stumbled on the following: [64092.216447] == [64092.217840] BUG: KASan: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance+0x3b7/0x480 at addr