Hi,
On 20-03-19 19:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:52:05AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 20-03-19 10:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:35:19AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
VirtualBox 6.0.x has a new feature where the guest kernel driver passes
info about the origin of the request (e.g. userspace or kernelspace) to
the hypervisor.
If we do not pass this information then when running the 6.0.x userspace
guest-additions tools on a 6.0.x host, some requests will get denied
with a VERR_VERSION_MISMATCH error, breaking vboxservice.service and
the mounting of shared folders marked to be auto-mounted.
This commit implements passing the requestor info to the host, fixing this.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This feels like support for a "new feature", so why would this need to
go to older kernels?
It's not our fault that vb implemented a non-backwards-compatible change
for their new release, right? So why should we be forced to add new
features to stable kernels?
From a technical point of view I completely agree with you and I'm unhappy
with this breakage after vb agreed with me to keep ABI compatibility so
that we could add a version of the vboxguest driver to the mainline kernel.
So they broke that agreement, ugh. That implies they will do it again?
Well they did not really broke the ABI, they started using a reserved
field and a 6.0.x host will happily work with 5.2.x guest-extensions
(with the mainline vboxguest driver) the same way around, 5.2.x host
als works with 6.0.x guest-extensions user-space bits + mainline kernel
module.
Things break when using a 6.0.x host + 6.0.x guest-extensions userspace
parts combined with the mainline kernel module. The 6.0.x + 6.0.x combi
seems to assume that there is a 6.0.x vboxguest driver which fills in
the reserved field. I believe this is an oversight and not a deliberate
breakage. Perhaps this is even something which the VirtualBox devs can
fix in a future 6.0.x update... Michael ?
OTOH this is going to bite users out there, which is why I added the Cc:
stable. But this is entirely your call.
Let me think about it...
I have no problem to add this for 5.2, but not for older stuff.
Can we at least at it as a fix to 5.1 ? It is not very adventurous.
Sure, let me go review it now.
Thank you for the review, I will reply to it tomorrow (and prep a v2).
Regards,
Hans
