From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp ([202.181.97.72]:43623 "EHLO www262.sakura.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726314AbeIHUpG (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2018 16:45:06 -0400 Subject: Re: next-20180906 crashes during ubifs_mount (legacy fs_context) To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <20180908131312.eob2glzykvq5w7dd@viti.kaiser.cx> Cc: Martin Kaiser From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 00:58:43 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180908131312.eob2glzykvq5w7dd@viti.kaiser.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Got response from David Howells to a mail I forwarded... -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <62a743d3-80af-8586-8719-e17a224de62f@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <62a743d3-80af-8586-8719-e17a224de62f@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180908131312.eob2glzykvq5w7dd@viti.kaiser.cx> To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Martin Kaiser Subject: Re: Fwd: next-20180906 crashes during ubifs_mount (legacy fs_context) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2018 16:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: <10870.1536419948@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I have CONFIG_SECURITY disabled. Enabling it does not change the behaviour. > > Commenting out the -ENOPARAM check makes the mount work again. > > I'm not sure how to fix this. Is it ok for > security_fs_context_parse_param() to return 0 when CONFIG_SECURITY is turned > off? Shouldn't this be -ENOPARAM, meaning "not a parameter I care about"? Yes. The default should be -ENOPARAM, both in security.c and security.h. I've fixed my tree and Al has pulled it, but it won't get into linux-next until Stephen next refreshes it. David