On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:53:54PM +0100, Luigi Leonardi wrote:
Hi all,
This series contains two patches that are already available upstream:
- The first commit fixes a use-after-free[1], but introduced a
null-ptr-deref[2].
- The second commit fixes it. [3]
I suggested waiting for both of them to be merged upstream and then
applying them togheter to stable[4].
It should be applied to:
- 6.13.y
- 6.12.y
- 6.6.y
I will send another series for
- 6.1.y
- 5.15.y
- 5.10.y
because of conflicts.
[1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250128-vsock-transport-vs-autobind-v3-0-1cf57065b770@xxxxxxx/
[2]https://lore.kernel.org/all/67a09300.050a0220.d7c5a.008b.GAE@xxxxxxxxxx/
[3]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250210-vsock-linger-nullderef-v3-0-ef6244d02b54@xxxxxxx/
[4]https://lore.kernel.org/all/2025020644-unwitting-scary-3c0d@gregkh/
Thanks,
Luigi
---
Michal Luczaj (2):
vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction
vsock: Orphan socket after transport release
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
base-commit: a1856aaa2ca74c88751f7d255dfa0c8c50fcc1ca
change-id: 20250214-linux-rolling-stable-d73f0bed815d
Best regards,
-- Luigi Leonardi <leonardi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks like I forgot to add my SoB to the commits, my bad.
For all the other stable trees (6.1, 5.15 and 5.10), there are some
conflicts due to some indentation changes introduced by 135ffc7 ("bpf,
vsock: Invoke proto::close on close()"). Should I backport this commit
too? There is no real dependency on the commit in the Fixes tag
("vsock: support sockmap"). IMHO, this would help future backports,
because of indentation conficts! Otherwise I can simply fix the patches.
WDYT?
Cheers,
Luigi
