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:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 00:59:46 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Rustam Subkhankulov <subkhankulov@ispras.ru>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
        ldv-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/inode.c: change the order of initialization in
 inode_init_always()
Message-ID: <Yw/18jnzW8fA3BYd@ZenIV>
References: <20220829141517.bcjbdk5zb74mrhgu@wittgenstein>
 <20220829192521.694631-1-subkhankulov@ispras.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220829192521.694631-1-subkhankulov@ispras.ru>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:25:21PM +0300, Rustam Subkhankulov wrote:
> If function security_inode_alloc() returns a nonzero value due to an
> error (e.g. fail to allocate memory), then some of the fields, including
> 'i_private', will not be initialized.
> 
> After that, if the fs-specfic free_inode function is called in
> i_callback(), the nonzero value of 'i_private' field can be interpreted
> as initialized. As a result, this can cause dereferencing of random
> value pointer (e.g. nilfs2).
> 
> In earlier versions, a similar situation could occur with the 'u' union
> in 'inode' structure.

See vfs.git#work.inode (included into #for-next); I agree that your
commit message looks better, but...