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...