On 08/09, Al Viro wrote: >On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:17:58AM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> On 08/08, valdis.kletni...@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...
Yes, they are doing test in a heavily isolated environments with chroot, no suid and isolated network.
