From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057F5C433FE for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7B6946B01A6; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 766726B01A7; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:28:34 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 654B96B01A8; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:28:34 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0099.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.99]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517F26B01A6 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0082F98C00 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:28:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79094290506.20.1BC65F6 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A29240006 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E91F6154B; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DFFAC340EB; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:28:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1643722112; bh=SIqq9crD10sgnkKKMFFcJOxkf1QKasn6QR3NIP9XRHc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ICn0cMvLVZK2SakKeULzNMwWIdXdNq/5aKuMcpBGA4X6aJF7QLNnM5KFiK9mIqYY8 NnLMG0rJOy7M4k6eXEccc5PRP3P91zggBq/nB193GuQWAh65YjUx2AsugxbMeeQ1QO p1w0OcLjH6WoSqytzRFUYhIhi4J1tK1GKlzbPqMFGu23dSVhguke6uAl5gF+H9SuIu zOmRYRXAwt2wmf62l77l8hENhS/nDS93RCb0y64/PtkZzlrCn/SPvP97haLN+KjYU+ QTx2TeoBBWSedKJTAMMK85Ykxgh4tlVPtELmBkxj5cFay0k5AlUESIq7zvV+uMpvPz MSEIScwOYScew== Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:28:25 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Andrew Morton Cc: Matthew Wilcox , kernel test robot , Kees Cook , Ariadne Conill , 0day robot , Michael Kerrisk , Rich Felker , Eric Biederman , Alexander Viro , LKML , lkp@lists.01.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [fs/exec] 80bd5afdd8: xfstests.generic.633.fail Message-ID: <20220201132825.zgl3fhnmhex5hcaw@wittgenstein> References: <20220127000724.15106-1-ariadne@dereferenced.org> <20220131144352.GE16385@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <20220131150819.iuqlz3rz6q7cheap@wittgenstein> <20220131153707.oe45h7tuci2cbfuv@wittgenstein> <20220131161415.wlvtsd4ecehyg3x5@wittgenstein> <20220131171344.77iifun5wdilbqdz@wittgenstein> <20220131135940.20790cff1747e79dd855aaf4@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220131135940.20790cff1747e79dd855aaf4@linux-foundation.org> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9A29240006 X-Stat-Signature: 4ottz7yphtdxxztsi3q16d5cja8gu77k X-Rspam-User: nil Authentication-Results: imf01.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=ICn0cMvL; spf=pass (imf01.hostedemail.com: domain of brauner@kernel.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=brauner@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org X-HE-Tag: 1643722113-218401 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 01:59:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:13:44 +0100 Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > in other words, the changes that you see CMD_ARGS[0] == NULL for > > > execveat() seem higher than for path-based exec. > > > > > > To counter that we should probably at least update the execveat() > > > manpage with a recommendation what CMD_ARGS[0] should be set to if it > > > isn't allowed to be set to NULL anymore. This is why was asking what > > > argv[0] is supposed to be if the binary doesn't take any arguments. > > > > Sent a fix to our fstests now replacing the argv[0] as NULL with "". > > As we hit this check so quickly, I'm thinking that Ariadne's patch > "fs/exec: require argv[0] presence in do_execveat_common()" (which > added the check) isn't something we'll be able to merge into mainline? Not in the originally envisioned form. But I think Kees patch to make a argv[0] the empty string when it's NULL has a better chance of surviving.