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]

Message-ID: <ZKuuoB6fcAV3ucFM@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:09:20 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
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 Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 08:22:31PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> 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?

OK here's what it's like now, let me know if you'd prefer any change:

  commit 8c2e51e174ed0f998b6bd90244324a4966a55efc
  Author: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
  Date:   Sat Jun 24 12:30:46 2023 +0200

    selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net
    
    The test relies on /proc/$PID/net to allow chmod() operations.
    It is the only file or directory in /proc/$PID/ to allow this and a bug.
    That bug will be fixed in the next patch in the series and therefore
    the test would start failing.
    
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d0d111ef-edae-4760-83fb-36db84278da1@t-8ch.de/
    Fixes: b4844fa0bdb4 ("selftests/nolibc: implement a few tests for various syscalls")
    Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
    Tested-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
    Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>

> Or do you want me to split and resend the series?

Not needed, thank you.
Willy