Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 19:02:14 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jiacheng Xu <578001344xu@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
        security@kernel.org
Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free in nilfs_mdt_destroy
Message-ID: <YvqKJppIL4lVCn9+@ZenIV>
References: <CAO4S-mficMz1mQW06EuCF+o11+mRDiCpufqVfoHkcRbQbs8kVw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO4S-mficMz1mQW06EuCF+o11+mRDiCpufqVfoHkcRbQbs8kVw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:03:21PM +0800, Jiacheng Xu wrote:

> Patch:
> Fix this bug by moving the assignment of inode->i_private before
> security_inode_alloc.
> An ad-hoc patch is proposed:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/patch/20211011030956.2459172-1-mudongliangabcd@gmail.com/

... and that looks like utter bollocks.  Why does security_inode_alloc()
look at ->i_private?  Which LSM is involved?