On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:58 AM Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:57:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 04:37:31PM -0800, Robert Kolchmeyer wrote:
> > > > Looking at the dependencies you've identified, it probably makes sense
> > > > to just take them as is (as it's something we would have done if these
> > > > dependencies were identified explicitly).
> > > >
> > > > I'll plan to queue them up after the current round of releases is out.
> > >
> > > Sounds great, thank you!
> >
> > I've dropped them now as there are some reported bug fixes with just
> > that commit that do not seem to apply properly at all, and we can't add
> > new problems when we know we are doing so :)
> >
> > So can you provide a working set of full backports for the relevant
> > kernels that include all fixes (specifically stuff like 8a924db2d7b5
> > ("fs: Pass AT_GETATTR_NOSEC flag to getattr interface function")) so
> > that we can properly queue them up then?
>
> Also don't forget 18b44bc5a672 ("ovl: Always reevaluate the file
> signature for IMA") either. There might be more...
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks - from what I can tell with `git log --grep`, 8a924db2d7b5
("fs: Pass AT_GETATTR_NOSEC flag to getattr interface function") is
the only such fix we need to backport (18b44bc5a672 ("ovl: Always
reevaluate the file signature for IMA") is already in stable trees and
introduced the regression that motivated this investigation).
I'll prepare these backports and send them to the list.
Thanks,
-Robert
