From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-fw-80008.amazon.com (smtp-fw-80008.amazon.com [99.78.197.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46EA1F4625; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=99.78.197.219 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743631155; cv=none; b=oblt9dVY6bpGXsNLXcJ4SP3axhRGQt5jPb4zpIhBAeKXxAHbDK8uWCI9DLnPBytLMO90IrXpnGZVp/Md9NpoqgRHDSczN1uNe+7HfiP0TqxxepafzKCP6/gF9AQF9bAIpai1DfaaYAHepLBnCyF9I7kx2vlqilEU6VpW8pT6jLU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743631155; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gZR/lUCfu7BfhLrh0H0NV5UuBc0uNwuknUip/HsM9TU=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Mn616sMqekvrFQW0h+sYgaApsYrT5Sicsnw8YQDzURRAEiTvhlL2clGCDpPkJNuFMg5cdHoNwiFIVaArnld+M/rvtVUZJwpWZxNfZeJU1mQWY7P3w7ebrCnWs1ccywK8dGSXhB8pCUX9aMxuQA9Db7w1OFA+XJbZsiOprkUqS2s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amazon.co.jp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b=bBbnKpj4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=99.78.197.219 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amazon.co.jp Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="bBbnKpj4" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1743631153; x=1775167153; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qbseHlUeh+wI3W4Lnm3HLIl0X8Puvw62VR4kgEDnHcU=; b=bBbnKpj4ZCvqGPcLTUOivixmVgL7hVVmCKVYwlSsZpkKUEMvorYoMcTg VdP975AWYD/9Zi/IZzRUW+SQfo8x4NNLO1Kv+XGlXk6f+3yYN12rJdKwK WKUDwpAF0JAkPlY6dJ/j36UCyN2yNFcrYuJRgi3wq9SZfu+AlTsWmATYP c=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,183,1739836800"; d="scan'208";a="184340993" Received: from pdx4-co-svc-p1-lb2-vlan3.amazon.com (HELO smtpout.prod.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev) ([10.25.36.214]) by smtp-border-fw-80008.pdx80.corp.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 21:59:11 +0000 Received: from EX19MTAUWC001.ant.amazon.com [10.0.21.151:52418] by smtpin.naws.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev [10.0.27.18:2525] with esmtp (Farcaster) id 4a897196-90c0-4ea2-919a-6cf1e06e4c38; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:59:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Farcaster-Flow-ID: 4a897196-90c0-4ea2-919a-6cf1e06e4c38 Received: from EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) by EX19MTAUWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.250.64.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.2.1544.14; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:59:07 +0000 Received: from 6c7e67bfbae3.amazon.com (10.106.101.8) by EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.2.1544.14; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:59:03 +0000 From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: CC: , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH][SMB3 client] fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:58:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20250402215855.18968-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.1 In-Reply-To: <2025040207-yippee-unlearned-4b1c@gregkh> References: <2025040207-yippee-unlearned-4b1c@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: EX19D041UWA001.ant.amazon.com (10.13.139.124) To EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) From: Greg KH Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:32:58 +0100 > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:50:05PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > From: Greg KH > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:28:51 +0100 > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:22:11PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > > > From: Greg KH > > > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:15:58 +0100 > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:09:19PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > > > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:18:37 +0100 > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:15:44PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:49:50PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it seems the previous description might not have been entirely clear. > > > > > > > > > > I need to clearly point out that this patch, intended as the fix for CVE-2024-54680, > > > > > > > > > > does not actually address any real issues. It also fails to resolve the null pointer > > > > > > > > > > dereference problem within lockdep. On top of that, it has caused a series of > > > > > > > > > > subsequent leakage issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this cve does not actually fix anything, then we can easily reject > > > > > > > > > it, please just let us know if that needs to happen here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I can confirm that the patch for CVE-2024-54680 (commit e9f2517a3e18) > > > > > > > > should be rejected. Our analysis shows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. It fails to address the actual null pointer dereference in lockdep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It introduces multiple serious issues: > > > > > > > > 1. A socket leak vulnerability as documented in bugzilla #219972 > > > > > > > > 2. Network namespace refcount imbalance issues as described in > > > > > > > > bugzilla #219792 (which required the follow-up mainline fix > > > > > > > > 4e7f1644f2ac "smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance > > > > > > > > causing leaks and use-after-free") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next thing we should probably do is: > > > > > > > > - Reverting e9f2517a3e18 > > > > > > > > - Reverting the follow-up fix 4e7f1644f2ac, as it's trying to fix > > > > > > > > problems introduced by the problematic CVE patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great, can you please send patches now for both of these so we can > > > > > > > backport them to the stable kernels properly? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent to CIFS tree: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20250402200319.2834-1-kuniyu@amazon.com/ > > > > > > > > > > You forgot to add a Cc: stable@ on the patches to ensure that they get > > > > > picked up properly for all stable trees :( > > > > > > > > Ah sorry, I did the same with netdev. netdev patches usually do > > > > not have the tag but are backported fine, maybe netdev local rule ? > > > > > > Nope, that's the "old" way of dealing with netdev patches, the > > > documentation was changed years ago, please always put a cc: stable on > > > it. Otherwise you are just at the whim of our "hey, I'm board, let's > > > look for Fixes: only tags!" script to catch them, which will also never > > > notify you of failures. > > > > Good to know that, thanks! > > > > My concern was that I could spam the list if I respin the patches, > > and incomplete patch could be backported. > > > > >From stable-kernel-rules.rst, such an accident can be prevented if > > someone points out a problem within 48 hours ? > > > > For example, if v1 is posted with Cc:stable, and a week later > > v2 is posted, then the not-yet-upstreamed v1 could be backported ? > > > > Anything can be asked to be applied to stable once it is in Linus's > tree, but if you add the cc: stable stuff to the original patch, it will > be done automatically for you. Now I understood. The process is triggered only after the patch is merged to Linus' tree. I assumed the workflow is triggered by the patch email itself. Thanks for explaining!