On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 4:44 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:59 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 4:00 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:21 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 20:59:49 +0100 Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > > > > > > As agreed with Xin Long, I'm posting this fix up instead of him. I am > > > > > > now fairly convinced that this is the right way to deal with the > > > > > > immediate problem of client peeloff socket labeling. I'll work on > > > > > > addressing the side problem regarding selinux_socket_post_create() > > > > > > being called on the peeloff sockets separately. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC Paul would like to see this part to come up in the same series. > > > > > > > > Just to reaffirm the IIUC part - yes, your understanding is correct. > > > > > > The more I'm reading these threads, the more I'm getting confused... > > > Do you insist on resending the whole original series with > > > modifications? Or actual revert patches + the new patches? Or is it > > > enough to revert/resend only the patches that need changes? Do you > > > also insist on the selinux_socket_post_create() thing to be fixed in > > > the same series? Note that the original patches are still in the > > > net.git tree and it doesn't seem like Dave will want to rebase them > > > away, so it seems explicit reverting is the only way to "respin" the > > > series... > > > > DaveM is stubbornly rejecting the revert requests so for now I would > > continue to base any patches on top of the netdev tree. If that > > changes we can reconcile any changes as necessary, that should not be > > a major issue. > > > > As far as what I would like to see from the patches, ignoring the > > commit description vs cover letter discussion, I would like to see > > patches that fix all of the known LSM/SELinux/SCTP problems as have > > been discussed over the past couple of weeks. Even beyond this > > particular issue I generally disapprove of partial fixes to known > > problems; I would rather see us sort out all of the issues in a single > > patchset so that we can review everything in a sane manner. In this > > particular case things are a bit more complicated because of the > > current state of the patches in the netdev tree, but as mentioned > > above just treat the netdev tree as broken and base your patches on > > that with all of the necessary "Fixes:" metadata and the like. > > Hm, okay, that isn't what I was branch-predicting from your other > responses, but works for me. If the past few years has shown us anything it is that branch prediction is ... problematic :) In an attempt to make my thinking a bit more clear, I see this as two issues: the first, and most important, is ultimately getting the SCTP/LSM/SELinux controls working properly, e.g. all the fixes you are currently working on; the second issue is the current state of the various kernel trees. Regardless of what happens with the second issue, I don't want it to detract from efforts on the first; making sure we fix the bugs is paramount. As you work on the patches to fix things, my suggestion is to take Xin Long's patches and drop them on top of some known-good kernel and use that as a base for your development. Earlier when I was looking at them I applied Xin Long's patches to the selinux/stable-5.16 branch via the selinux-pr-20211101 tag and they applied cleanly, I suspect you could do the same with the v5.15 tag from Linus tree. Focus on your patches, I'll help resolve any (re)base/merging issues they may arise once you have things sorted out. Unfortunately, I was greeted by an email notification this morning that Xin Long's patches have made their way into Linus tree. I thought these patches were going to stay in -next for the v5.16-rcX timeframe, I didn't realize the netdev folks were planning to submit these for v5.16. I wasn't happy with the patches in linux-next, I'm definitely not happy with them in Linus tree; this is something we will need to deal with, but to be clear, regardless of what happens in Linus' tree please keep working on the fixes. > > > Regardless of the answers, this thing has rabbithole'd too much and > > > I'm already past my free cycles to dedicate to this, so I think it > > > will take me (and Xin) some time to prepare the corrected and > > > re-documented patches. Moreover, I think I realized how to to deal > > > with the peer_secid-vs.-multiple-assocs-on-one-socket problem that Xin > > > mentions in patch 4/4, fixing which can't really be split out into a > > > separate patch and will need some test coverage, so I don't think I > > > can rush this up at this point... > > > > It's not clear to me from your comments above if this is something you > > are currently working on, planning to work on soon, or giving up on in > > the near term. Are we able to rely on you for a patchset to fix this > > or are you unable to see this through at this time? > > I'm still working on it, but I'll need to juggle it with other things > now and I might need to defer it completely at some point. I don't > think I'll have all the patches ready sooner than two weeks from now. > My point was to explain that I'm unable to provide a proper fix in the > short term ... Thanks for the clarification and your continued work on this. If something happens and you are not able to continue to make progress on this please let me know so I can pick this up. As you know, we need to get this fixed. > ... and don't want to block the netdev maintainers in case they > were waiting for this to get resolved before e.g. sending a PR to > Linus. It's a bit of a moot point now (see above), but I *definitely* want to block the patches that are in the netdev tree from hitting Linus tree. I can see a middle ground that you described for keeping patches 1/4 and 2/4, but I see the remaining two patches as problematic and not something we want in a released kernel from Linus. If we had guarantees that we could have this fixed before v5.16 is released I might be inclined to let this slide, but considering your estimate of a minimum of two weeks of additional development, the potential need for further respins depending on review, the holiday season, etc. it seems like we need to appeal to Linus to do at least a partial revert for now. I'll send some email on this to Linus and the relevant mailing lists, but I need to do the revert and do some testing on it to make sure it's sane. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
