linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] proc: proc

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]

Date:   Sun, 9 Jul 2023 20:22:31 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] proc: proc_setattr for /proc/$PID/net

On 2023-07-09 20:04:32+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:57:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2023-07-09 19:27:53+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:10:58PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > On 2023-07-09 11:29:47+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:06:09PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > > > >> [..]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now queued, thanks!
> > > > > Willy
> > > > 
> > > > Don't we need an Ack from the fs maintainers for the patch to
> > > > fs/proc/proc_net.c ?
> > > > 
> > > > Personally I expected this series to go in via the fs tree because of
> > > > that patch.
> > > 
> > > Gasp! You're totally right, I confused it with a test only changing
> > > the nolibc-test file, as the chmod_net test appeared as a dependency!
> > > Let me drop it from the series and push again.
> > 
> > I think if this patch now also goes in via both the nolibc/rcu trees and
> > the fs tree it would not be great.
> >
> > The best way forward would probably for you to rebase your tree on top
> > of mainline after the fs tree has introduced both patches of the series
> > into Linus' tree and then you can drop your copy of the test removal.
> 
> Yeah I agree.
> 
> > I want to keep both patches together because I expect the fs change to
> > be backported and if it is backported on its own it will break
> > nolibc-test in those trees.
> 
> OK but we can also fix the test regardless, and mark it for backport, no ?

That should work fine, too.
Can you add the Fixes and Cc-stable tags in your tree and let the fs
maintainers know?
Or do you want me to split and resend the series?

> > But maybe I'm overthinking it, nobody is running nolibc-test on
> > non-mainline kernels anyways and both patches can be split.
> 
> I agree that we shouldn't grant too much importance to this test ;-)
> I'm regularly seeing Sasha propose them for backports and am thinking
> "ok it cannot hurt but I'm not convinced anyone will notice the fix".
> 
> > If they are to be kept together and go via fs an Ack on the nolibc-test
> > patch is probably needed, too.
> 
> OK. Let's first see if someone from FS agrees on the change.

Sounds good.


Thomas