On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 09:02:41AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > 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. For when you send us a patch series for inclusion, sure, all is fine. I mean for when you merge stuff to Linus and expect us to pick them up. > 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. Both is best, that way if you have a Fixes: tag in it, and a patch does not apply properly, you will get a "FAILED" email sent to you. If you only have the cc: stable then we just do a best-effort attempt and stop backporting when it doesn't apply and don't notify you at all about any failures. thanks, greg k-h
