[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170619194120.6bwnnnxve7h5eltd@sasha-lappy>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:41:07 +0000
From: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for v4.9 LTS 13/86] ubifs: allow encryption ioctls in
compat mode
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:21:44PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>Am 19.06.2017 um 19:02 schrieb Eric Biggers:
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:24:31PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit a75467d910135905de60b3af3f11b3693625781e ]
>>>
>>> The ubifs encryption ioctls did not work when called by a 32-bit program
>>> on a 64-bit kernel. Since 'struct fscrypt_policy' is not affected by
>>> the word size, ubifs just needs to allow these ioctls through, like what
>>> ext4 and f2fs do.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/ubifs/ioctl.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c b/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> index 3c7b29de0ca7..49d6c0f89c50 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> @@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ long ubifs_compat_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
>>> cmd = FS_IOC_SETFLAGS;
>>> break;
>>> + case FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY:
>>> + case FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY:
>>> + break;
>>> default:
>>> return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>>> }
>>
>> UBIFS encryption was merged in 4.10, so this isn't needed in 4.9.
Thanks Eric, removed from queue.
>Yep. I wonder why this patch made it into the stable queue?
We're testing out a method of finding commits that aren't tagged for stable
but should be there. There is supposed to be more review for such commits
(I fucked it up in this case) + it's sent out for a review twice before
being shipped.
In general, it seems to have a good hit rate so far.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists