On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:24 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
> > > in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so
> > > they can be excused. The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
> > > case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.
> > >
> > > These three patches:
> > > 1/ document and explain the problem
> > > 2/ fix the problem user in x86
> > > 3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp
> >
> > 1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and
> > interface") was August 2018, so I don't think "recent" applies here?
> >
> > I didn't look closely, but it appears that the sctp procfs file is
> > world-readable. So we gave unprivileged userspace the ability to leak
> > kernel memory?
> >
> > So I'm thinking that we aim for 5.12-rc1 on all three patches with a cc:stable?
>
> I'd rather take the sctp patch sooner, we'll send another batch
> of networking fixes for 5.11, anyway. Would that be okay with you?
Sure.
