Got response from David Howells to a mail I forwarded... -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> In-Reply-To: <62a743d3-80af-8586-8719-e17a224de62f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> References: <62a743d3-80af-8586-8719-e17a224de62f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20180908131312.eob2glzykvq5w7dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, Martin Kaiser <lists@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
