On 1/30/25 3:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 11:37:51AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On 1/29/25 10:21 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:06:49AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> On 1/29/25 9:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:55:15AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>>>> On 1/24/25 2:19 PM, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This series backports several upstream fixes to origin/linux-6.6.y >>>>>>> in order to address CVE-2024-46701: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46701 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As applied to origin/linux-6.6.y, this series passes fstests and the >>>>>>> git regression suite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Before officially requesting that stable@ merge this series, I'd >>>>>>> like to provide an opportunity for community review of the backport >>>>>>> patches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can also find them them in the "nfsd-6.6.y" branch in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chuck Lever (10): >>>>>>> libfs: Re-arrange locking in offset_iterate_dir() >>>>>>> libfs: Define a minimum directory offset >>>>>>> libfs: Add simple_offset_empty() >>>>>>> libfs: Fix simple_offset_rename_exchange() >>>>>>> libfs: Add simple_offset_rename() API >>>>>>> shmem: Fix shmem_rename2() >>>>>>> libfs: Return ENOSPC when the directory offset range is exhausted >>>>>>> Revert "libfs: Add simple_offset_empty()" >>>>>>> libfs: Replace simple_offset end-of-directory detection >>>>>>> libfs: Use d_children list to iterate simple_offset directories >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fs/libfs.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >>>>>>> include/linux/fs.h | 2 + >>>>>>> mm/shmem.c | 3 +- >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've heard no objections or other comments. Greg, Sasha, shall we >>>>>> proceed with merging this patch series into v6.6 ? >>>>> >>>>> Um, but not all of these are in a released kernel yet, so we can't take >>>>> them all yet. >>>> >>>> Hi Greg - >>>> >>>> The new patches are in v6.14 now. I'm asking stable to take these >>>> whenever you are ready. Would that be v6.14-rc1? I can send a reminder >>>> if you like. >>> >>> Yes, we have to wait until changes are in a -rc release unless there are >>> "real reasons to take it now" :) >>> >>>>> Also what about 6.12.y and 6.13.y for those commits that >>>>> will be showing up in 6.14-rc1? We can't have regressions for people >>>>> moving to those releases from 6.6.y, right? >>>> >>>> The upstream commits have Fixes tags. I assumed that your automation >>>> will find those and apply them to those kernels -- the upstream versions >>>> of these patches I expect will apply cleanly to recent LTS. >>> >>> "Fixes:" are never guaranteed to show up in stable kernels, they are >>> only a "maybe when we get some spare cycles and get around to it we >>> might do a simple pass to see what works or doesn't." >>> >>> If you KNOW a change is a bugfix for stable kernels, please mark it as >>> such! "Fixes:" is NOT how to do that, and never has been. It's only >>> additional meta-data that helps us out. >>> >>> So please send us a list of the commits that need to go to 6.12.y and >>> 6.13.y, we have to have that before we could take the 6.6.y changes. >> >> 903dc9c43a15 ("libfs: Return ENOSPC when the directory offset range is >> exhausted") >> d7bde4f27cee ("Revert "libfs: Add simple_offset_empty()"") >> b662d858131d ("Revert "libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir"") >> 68a3a6500314 ("libfs: Replace simple_offset end-of-directory detection") >> b9b588f22a0c ("libfs: Use d_children list to iterate simple_offset >> directories") > > Cool, thanks for the list (and not all were marked with fixes, i.e. > those reverts, I guess we need to start checking for reverts better. I > have tooling set up for that but not integrated yet...) > > I'll just queue them all up now. My thinking was the patches marked "Fixes:" would show an obvious need for applying the unmarked patches as pre-requisites first. I promise to do better marking patches with "Cc: stable". But also let me know if there's a way to label pre-req patches more clearly. Maybe "Cc: stable" without "Fixes:" is the way to go there. Thank you, Greg, for your time. -- Chuck Lever
