Re: [PATCH 6.1 562/600] bpf: Fix issue in verifying allow_ptr_leaks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 01:39:44AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:34 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:26:28AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 9/16/23 1:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 08:51:32AM +0000, Luis Gerhorst wrote:
> > > > > > 6.1-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit d75e30dddf73449bc2d10bb8e2f1a2c446bc67a2 upstream.
> > > > >
> > > > > I unfortunately have objections, they are pending discussion at [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > Same applies to the 6.4-stable review patch [2] and all other backports.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230913122827.91591-1-gerhorst@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230911134709.834278248@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > > > As this is in the tree already, and in Linus's tree, I'll wait to see
> > > > if any changes are merged into Linus's tree for this before removing it
> > > > from the stable trees.
> > > >
> > > > Let us know if there's a commit that resolves this and we will be glad
> > > > to queue that up.
> > >
> > > Commit d75e30dddf73 ("bpf: Fix issue in verifying allow_ptr_leaks") is not
> > > stable material. It's not really a "fix", but it will simply make direct
> > > packet access available to applications without CAP_PERFMON - the latter
> > > was required so far given Spectre v1. However, there is ongoing discussion [1]
> > > that potentially not much useful information can be leaked out and therefore
> > > lifting it may or may not be ok. If we queue this to stable and later figure
> > > we need to revert the whole thing again because someone managed to come up
> > > with a PoC in the meantime, then there's higher risk of breakage.
> >
> > Ick, ok, so just this one commit should be reverted?  Or any others as
> > well?
> 
> I don't think revert is necessary. Just don't backport any further.

Ok, thanks, it's not backported into any other kernels at the moment, so
I'll not worry about this anymore :)

greg k-h



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux