[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210206142924.2bfc3cf5@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:24 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
> > in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so
> > they can be excused. The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
> > case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.
> >
> > These three patches:
> > 1/ document and explain the problem
> > 2/ fix the problem user in x86
> > 3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp
>
> 1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and
> interface") was August 2018, so I don't think "recent" applies here?
>
> I didn't look closely, but it appears that the sctp procfs file is
> world-readable. So we gave unprivileged userspace the ability to leak
> kernel memory?
>
> So I'm thinking that we aim for 5.12-rc1 on all three patches with a cc:stable?
I'd rather take the sctp patch sooner, we'll send another batch
of networking fixes for 5.11, anyway. Would that be okay with you?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists