On 12/10/17 12:39, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-stable tree.
>
> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
>
> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
> <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.
I'm fairly sure my original patch didn't cc stable, so not sure why it
ended up here either.
Colin
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
>
> From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static
>
> The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does
> not need to be in global scope, so make it static.
>
> Cleans up sparse warning:
> symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> +static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> {
> /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
> refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
>