On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 3:43 PM Anna Schumaker
<anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/24/25 9:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 3:10 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 2:30 PM Stephen Smalley
> >> <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> commit b530104f50e8 ("lsm: lsm_context in security_dentry_init_security")
> >>> did not preserve the lsm id for subsequent release calls, which results
> >>> in a memory leak. Fix it by saving the lsm id in the nfs4_label and
> >>> providing it on the subsequent release call.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: b530104f50e8 ("lsm: lsm_context in security_dentry_init_security")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 7 ++++---
> >>> include/linux/nfs4.h | 1 +
> >>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Now that we've seen Casey's patch, I believe this patch is the better
> >> solution and we should get this up to Linus during the v6.14-rcX
> >> phase. I've got one minor nitpick (below), but how would you like to
> >> handle this patch NFS folks? I'm guessing you would prefer to pull
> >> this via the NFS tree, but if not let me know and I can pull it via
> >> the LSM tree (an ACK would be appreciated).
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I realize it's only been a couple of days, but pinging the NFS
> > maintainers directly in case this has fallen off their radar ...
>
> Thanks for the ping on this! For whatever reason, my email client decided
> to (unhelpfully) put the rest of this email thread in my spam folder. I've
> applied it for v6.14-rc.
Thanks Anna :)
--
paul-moore.com
