On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:01 PM Daniel Burgener <dburgener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/16/20 11:49 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 05:44:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:48:31AM -0400, Daniel Burgener wrote: > >>> > > v2: Include all commits from original series, and include commit > >>> ids > >>> > > > >>> > > This is a backport for stable of my series to fix a race > >>> condition in > >>> > > selinuxfs during policy load: > >>> > > >>> > Has this race condition always been present, or is this a regression > >>> > that is being fixed from previously working kernels? > >>> > >>> So this issue has always been there, but: > >>> > >>> > If it's always been present, why not just use 5.9 to solve it? > >>> > >>> Because it was merged for 5.10 rather than 5.9, which is a few months > >>> out, so Daniel is looking to see if we can have it in 5.8/5.4 to close > >>> the gap. > >> > >> I would have to wait for 5.10-rc1 at the earliest, and get the selinux > >> maintainers ack for this :) > > > > No objections; if the selinux folks feel unhappy with this it'll just > > wait for 5.10. > > > Yes, that's fine from my end as well. We can carry this series out of > tree in the interim. Thanks! I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to backporting patches to -stable, and since this is both a) big and b) fixes a problem that has existed since the dawn of selinuxfs (and possibly longer <g>) I think the smart thing to do is to wait for v5.10. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
