linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] nfsd: fix nfsd4_deleg_getattr_conflict in presence of third party lease

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: <172499770304.4433.15669416955311925812@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:01:43 +1000
From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To: "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>, "Olga Kornievskaia" <kolga@...app.com>,
 "Dai Ngo" <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, "Tom Talpey" <tom@...pey.com>,
 "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@...nel.org>, "Anna Schumaker" <anna@...nel.org>,
 "Olga Kornievskaia" <okorniev@...hat.com>,
 "Alexander Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 "Christian Brauner" <brauner@...nel.org>, "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>,
 "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Tom Haynes" <loghyr@...il.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] nfsd: fix nfsd4_deleg_getattr_conflict in
 presence of third party lease

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 09:26:39AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > 
> > It is not safe to dereference fl->c.flc_owner without first confirming
> > fl->fl_lmops is the expected manager.  nfsd4_deleg_getattr_conflict()
> > tests fl_lmops but largely ignores the result and assumes that flc_owner
> > is an nfs4_delegation anyway.  This is wrong.
> > 
> > With this patch we restore the "!= &nfsd_lease_mng_ops" case to behave
> > as it did before the changed mentioned below.  This the same as the
> > current code, but without any reference to a possible delegation.
> > 
> > Fixes: c5967721e106 ("NFSD: handle GETATTR conflict with write delegation")
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> 
> I've already applied this to nfsd-fixes.
> 
> If I include this commit in both nfsd-fixes and nfsd-next then the
> linux-next merge whines about duplicate patches. Stephen Rothwell
> suggested git-merging nfsd-fixes and nfsd-next but I'm not quite
> confident enough to try that.
> 
> Barring another solution, merging this series will have to wait a
> few days before the two trees can sync up.

Hmmm....  I would probably always rebase nfsd-next on nfsd-fixes, which
I would rebase on the most recent of rc0, rc1, or the latest rc to
receive nfsd patches.

nfsd-fixes is currently based on 6.10-rc7, while -next is based on
6.11-rc5.

Why the 6.10 base??

NeilBrown