linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] virt: vbox: Implement passing requestor info to the host for VirtualBox 6.0.x

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190320181934.GA3907@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:19:34 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Michael Thayer <michael.thayer@...cle.com>,
        "Knut St . Osmundsen" <knut.osmundsen@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virt: vbox: Implement passing requestor info to the host
 for VirtualBox 6.0.x

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:52:05AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20-03-19 10:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:35:19AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > VirtualBox 6.0.x has a new feature where the guest kernel driver passes
> > > info about the origin of the request (e.g. userspace or kernelspace) to
> > > the hypervisor.
> > > 
> > > If we do not pass this information then when running the 6.0.x userspace
> > > guest-additions tools on a 6.0.x host, some requests will get denied
> > > with a VERR_VERSION_MISMATCH error, breaking vboxservice.service and
> > > the mounting of shared folders marked to be auto-mounted.
> > > 
> > > This commit implements passing the requestor info to the host, fixing this.
> > > 
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > 
> > This feels like support for a "new feature", so why would this need to
> > go to older kernels?
> > 
> > It's not our fault that vb implemented a non-backwards-compatible change
> > for their new release, right?  So why should we be forced to add new
> > features to stable kernels?
> 
> From a technical point of view I completely agree with you and I'm unhappy
> with this breakage after vb agreed with me to keep ABI compatibility so
> that we could add a version of the vboxguest driver to the mainline kernel.

So they broke that agreement, ugh.  That implies they will do it again?

> OTOH this is going to bite users out there, which is why I added the Cc:
> stable. But this is entirely your call.

Let me think about it...

> > I have no problem to add this for 5.2, but not for older stuff.
> 
> Can we at least at it as a fix to 5.1 ? It is not very adventurous.

Sure, let me go review it now.

thanks,

greg k-h