Got response from David Howells to a mail I forwarded...
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: [off-list ref]
References: [off-list ref] [ref]
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: dhowells at redhat.com, Martin Kaiser <redacted>
Subject: Re: Fwd: next-20180906 crashes during ubifs_mount (legacy fs_context)
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2018 16:19:08 +0100
Message-ID: [off-list ref]
Tetsuo Handa [off-list ref] 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