From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 282F71F12EF; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 10:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743675274; cv=none; b=oP8M8OevmPv5/JLqx0dIuQEdY0O3XWrm2A7jrwPHIf1Mzy/fiYkZSgpPt4KHG/S5Zi1WlyenZZRKKDniXsF3wXTnGjXUKjdu3JZlnhhMAs2gRlz+pLf1odYUsCWdbNb1XGMoWNjHzMvMS14MA92BFQYJ3dIiguf/J0l/9FbGvI8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743675274; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sjeoKwvNnAErTTB2TVWghFi+HJtqzrkEia5y2ZVSlwc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=LVABq1Ejug2yl6Rt3OYlr+kfpQ5wZjSxZ0g/UWLuRgQ80aqOadx451DAjDHgwYPtcmMdfGApMB7MRQMJ+7lVYNLWXk/uiCD56skgLjfJy295naZAEJzxiZmEY4KxIUjgUEKgqD1OrlulRL1RuEKTIG1pK1fGk4kAsaLeZAswqpY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.252]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZSyCx604bzvWql; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:10:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A73B1800E4; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:14:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.209] (10.174.178.209) by kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:14:21 +0800 Message-ID: <0520d98d-8289-4cd8-bf37-57bf00750e63@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:14:19 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cifs: Revert bogus fix for CVE-2024-54680 and its followup commit. To: Steve French , Kuniyuki Iwashima CC: , , , , , , , , , LKML References: <20250403021927.53033-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> From: Wang Zhaolong In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.71) > For a complex issue like this it is important to have at least some > Tested-by or Reviewed-by for these two, because I was having trouble > reproducing the various reported problems on Ubuntu (or our Fedora > test VMs), and the refcount issues are more complicated they seem. > Let me know if anyone has reviewed these two patches or tested them. > Hi Steve, I can confirm these issues on my test environment. I'm currently using Debian Testing (Trixie) for my development work. I've also observed the unexpected phenomenon on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS when running the test cases. I suspect the difficulty in reproducing might be related to rootfs image versions - particularly with older distros like Ubuntu 16.04, as the test case involves numerous dependent packages. The issue of net_ns reference count leakage is not fully resolved yet. Based on that use case, the net_ns count leakage problem can still be constructed by adding various network faults. I'm currently modernizing my development environment and working on automating it. In the future, I will try to provide more comprehensive reproduction steps when reporting problems, including detailed instructions for setting up the environment. Best regards, Wang Zhaolong