[LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600
linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com
linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 11:25:58 CEST 2026
Hi Andrea,
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile
> new file mode 100644
> +top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
> +
> +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
> +
> +LDLIBS += -lpthread
> +
> +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
Every existing standalone CVE reproducer named cve-<id>.c
(cve-2014-0196, cve-2016-7042, cve-2025-38236, cve-2026-46331, ...)
already lives under testcases/cve/, whose Makefile builds every
target from a wildcard and already carries per-target LDLIBS/CFLAGS
overrides (e.g. "-pthread" for other threaded reproducers), plus its
own .gitignore.
Is there a reason this one needs a brand-new
testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/ directory instead of adding
"cve-2026-64600: LDLIBS += -lpthread" to the existing
testcases/cve/Makefile?
Separately, this Makefile is also missing the
"SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later" + Copyright header that
every leaf Makefile is expected to start with.
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/cve-2026-64600.c b/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/cve-2026-64600.c
> + .filesystems = (struct tst_fs []) {
> + {.type = "xfs"},
> + {}
> + },
testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_ficlone03.c's xfs entry sets
.min_kver = "4.16", .mkfs_ver = "mkfs.xfs >= 1.5.0" and .mkfs_opts =
{"-m", "reflink=1", NULL}, since reflink is only guaranteed once the
xfsprogs version/format enables it. Here the xfs entry has none of
that. On a system where mkfs.xfs does not default to reflink=1,
would setup() just TCONF through the EOPNOTSUPP/EINVAL/ENOSYS branch
instead of exercising the race, or is the plain default considered
reliable enough these days?
Verdict - Needs revision
---
Note:
The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.
Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer
More information about the ltp
mailing list