On 2/18/25 09:35, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 08:45:57PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> On 2/17/25 12:18, Luigi Leonardi wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Just a note: since sockmap does not support AF_VSOCK in those kernels <= >> 6.1, backporting 135ffc7 would introduce a (no-op) callback function >> vsock_close(), which would then be (unnecessarily) called on every >> vsock_release(). >> > > But this is the same behavior we have now upstream (without considering > sockmap), right? Oh, right, that's true. > Do you see any potential problems? No, nothing I can think of. Note however that the comment above vsock_close() ("Dummy callback required by sockmap. See unconditional call of saved_close() in sock_map_close().") becomes somewhat misleading :)
