From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752265AbcHIB2P (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 21:28:15 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:41888 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751651AbcHIB2N (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 21:28:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 02:27:56 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>,
        0day robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [fs] 45ec18d5c7: BUG: KASAN: user-memory-access on address
 00007f90291c7ec0
Message-ID: <20160809012756.GO2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20160807140242.GA21617@yexl-desktop>
 <17429.1470673783@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20160809011758.GE8581@yexl-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160809011758.GE8581@yexl-desktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:17:58AM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> On 08/08, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 22:02:42 +0800, kernel test robot said:
> >
> >> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
> >> Nicholas-Krause/fs-Fix-kmemleak-leak-warning-in-getname_flags-about-working-on-unitialized-memory/20160804-055054
> >> commit 45ec18d5c713bccb9807782f0dca29b92ba99784 ("fs:Fix kmemleak leak warning in getname_flags about working on unitialized memory")
> >
> >The real question here is why the 0day system was even bothering to try
> >compiling and booting a patch from somebody who has a long record of failing
> >to do so with patches before submission.  Actually looking at the patch
> >in question shows that little or no thought or testing was done (hint:
> >look at it, and wonder in amazement why there's a dump_stack() call where
> >it is....)
> >
> >In other words - how did this patch get into a tree that 0day listens to?
> 
> 0Day has a service to automatically capture every patchset sent to LKML, and convert
> email patchset to git branches by applying them on top of different
> trees heuristically.

*raised eyebrows*

I really hope they are doing both builds and testing in a heavily isolated
environments, then.  Because you've just described an attack vector it's
vulnerable to...