From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7EFC7618B for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6557121926 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:57:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1563969439; bh=V3MHZ4a0FYKU0/zh93aRaZkyLf8z6W2hDkel19hVLrQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=w6Jz6E2ekoBr5LmZmasvAMPTD8uaOTMSMd3yUD4omihgmzJaB3Q/ntH7acp4JFqcE tP+ZdKFA+4t9hLM98CW8HQY1mXKhqQadB3VxNS+HXdMUkIupnIBN5kOqFvZaq6j81f a6kcqLLTWzNW1BO4o5+0ocgSteJA6pWvrs440yGY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387399AbfGXL5T (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:57:19 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37772 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387394AbfGXL5S (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:57:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B3221926; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:57:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1563969437; bh=V3MHZ4a0FYKU0/zh93aRaZkyLf8z6W2hDkel19hVLrQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Q71g8DEAf0PR+HF5VsjtjhrG7E+J08nb23XAr1CebemgmlK4dOmBnEXTa+4wf2chp 7CGZCc058iCaubflYdSmRg/7mGaqsyTMvM6hXYZdZ8XXcgFRPI61Plad2h/YdEJF7S YlRwMhKY3Qs7E6t9eAMy0Ea9GsxFbe49366yJux8= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:57:14 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Sasha Levin , Miklos Szeredi , stable , overlayfs Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ovl: support the FS_IOC_FS[SG]ETXATTR ioctls" failed to apply to 5.1-stable tree Message-ID: <20190724115714.GA3244@kroah.com> References: <1560073529193139@kroah.com> <20190623010345.GJ2226@sasha-vm> <20190623202916.GA10957@kroah.com> <20190624003409.GO2226@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:52:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:34 AM Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:29:16PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 09:03:45PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:15:47AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 12:45 PM wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.1-stable tree. > > >> > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > >> > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > >> > > > id to . > > >> > > > > > >> > > > thanks, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > greg k-h > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > FYI, the failure to apply this patch would be resolved after you > > >> > > picked up "ovl: check the capability before cred overridden" for > > >> > > stable, please hold off from taking this patch just yet, because > > >> > > it has a bug, whose fix wasn't picked upstream yet. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Greg, > > >> > > > >> > Please apply these patches to stable 4.19. > > >> > They fix a docker regression (project quotas feature). > > >> > > > >> > b21d9c435f93 ovl: support the FS_IOC_FS[SG]ETXATTR ioctls > > >> > 941d935ac763 ovl: fix wrong flags check in FS_IOC_FS[SG]ETXATTR ioctls > > >> > > > >> > They apply cleanly and tested on v4.19.53. > > >> > > >> I've queued these for 4.19. > > >> > > >> > While at it, I also tested that the following patches apply cleanly and solve > > >> > relevant issues on v4.19.53, but they are not clear stable candidates. > > >> > > > >> > 1) /proc/locks shows incorrect ino. Only reported by xfstests (so far): > > >> > 6dde1e42f497 ovl: make i_ino consistent with st_ino in more cases > > >> > > >> And this. > > >> > > >> > 2) Fix output of `modinfo overlay`: > > >> > 253e74833911 ovl: fix typo in MODULE_PARM_DESC > > >> > > >> But not this one. Maybe we should be including these in stable trees > > >> since the risk factor is low and it fixes something user-visible, but > > >> our current rules object this this kind of patches so I've left it out. > > >> > > >> > 3) Disallow bogus layer combinations. > > >> > syzbot has started to produce repros that create bogus layer combinations. > > >> > So far it has only been able to reproduce a WARN_ON, which has already > > >> > been fixed in stable, by acf3062a7e1c ("ovl: relax WARN_ON()..."), but > > >> > other real bugs could be lurking if those setups are allowed. > > >> > We decided to detect and error on these setups on mount, to stop syzbot > > >> > (and attackers) from trying to attack overlayfs this way. > > >> > To stop syzbot from mutating this class of repros on stable kernel you > > >> > MAY apply these 3 patches, but in any case, I would wait a while to see > > >> > if more bugs are reported on master. > > >> > Although this solves a problem dating before 4.19, I have no plans > > >> > of backporting these patches further back. > > >> > > > >> > 146d62e5a586 ovl: detect overlapping layers > > >> > 9179c21dc6ed ovl: don't fail with disconnected lower NFS > > >> > 1dac6f5b0ed2 ovl: fix bogus -Wmaybe-unitialized warning > > >> > > >> I've queued these 3 for 4.19. > > > > > >What about the ones that are needed for 5.1? > > > > Ah yes, I haven't realized that the syzkaller ones are needed for 5.1. > > I'll queue them up. > > > > I don't think syzkaller ones are more relevant to 5.1 then the rest of > the patches applied to 4.19. If anything, its the other way around. > According to syzbot dashboard, it is being run on LTS kernels, not on > latest stable. > > Please forgive me if my language caused confusion, when I said > "please apply to 4.19" I meant 4.19+. So is anything else needed to be done here, or are we all caught up and everything merged properly? thanks, greg k-h