netdev - Re: [Patch net] cgroup: fix cgroup_sk_alloc() for sk_clone

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: <20200702160242.GA91667@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:02:42 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC:     Cameron Berkenpas <cam@...-zeon.de>, Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
        Daniël Sonck <dsonck92@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] cgroup: fix cgroup_sk_alloc() for sk_clone_lock()

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 09:48:48PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:48 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Btw if we want to backport the problem but can't blame a specific commit,
> > we can always use something like "Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>    [3.1+]".
> 
> Sure, but if we don't know which is the right commit to blame, then how
> do we know which stable version should the patch target? :)
> 
> I am open to all options here, including not backporting to stable at all.

It seems to be that the issue was there from bd1060a1d671 ("sock, cgroup: add sock->sk_cgroup"),
so I'd go with it. Otherwise we can go with 5.4+, as I understand before that it was
hard to reproduce it.

Thanks!