* Re: efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) [not found] <CA+eDQTFQ45nWGmctp-CkK=xXXQQHc_DTkM1iN4m-0o5fCjt8VA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2024-03-21 14:43 ` Ted Brandston 2024-03-21 14:58 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Ted Brandston @ 2024-03-21 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ardb, linux-efi, stable, gregkh; +Cc: Jiao Zhou, Nicholas Bishop Hi, this is my first time posting to a kernel list (third try, finally figured out the html-free -- sorry for the noise). I noticed that in the 6.6 kernel there's a fix commit from Ard [1] but not the commit it's fixing ("efivarfs: Add uid/gid mount options"). Same thing in 6.1 [2]. The commit being fixed doesn't appear until 6.7 [3]. I'm not familiar with this code so it's unclear to me if this might cause problems, but I figured I should point it out. [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.6.y&id=48be1364dd387e375e1274b76af986cb8747be2c [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.1.y [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.7.y Thanks! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) 2024-03-21 14:43 ` efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) Ted Brandston @ 2024-03-21 14:58 ` Greg KH 2024-03-21 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2024-03-21 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Brandston; +Cc: ardb, linux-efi, stable, Jiao Zhou, Nicholas Bishop On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Ted Brandston wrote: > Hi, this is my first time posting to a kernel list (third try, finally > figured out the html-free -- sorry for the noise). > > I noticed that in the 6.6 kernel there's a fix commit from Ard [1] but > not the commit it's fixing ("efivarfs: Add uid/gid mount options"). > Same thing in 6.1 [2]. The commit being fixed doesn't appear until 6.7 > [3]. > > I'm not familiar with this code so it's unclear to me if this might > cause problems, but I figured I should point it out. > > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.6.y&id=48be1364dd387e375e1274b76af986cb8747be2c > [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.1.y > [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.7.y Good catch. Ard, should this be reverted? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) 2024-03-21 14:58 ` Greg KH @ 2024-03-21 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2024-03-21 15:34 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2024-03-21 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Ted Brandston, linux-efi, stable, Jiao Zhou, Nicholas Bishop On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:59, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Ted Brandston wrote: > > Hi, this is my first time posting to a kernel list (third try, finally > > figured out the html-free -- sorry for the noise). > > > > I noticed that in the 6.6 kernel there's a fix commit from Ard [1] but > > not the commit it's fixing ("efivarfs: Add uid/gid mount options"). > > Same thing in 6.1 [2]. The commit being fixed doesn't appear until 6.7 > > [3]. > > > > I'm not familiar with this code so it's unclear to me if this might > > cause problems, but I figured I should point it out. > > > > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.6.y&id=48be1364dd387e375e1274b76af986cb8747be2c > > [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.1.y > > [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.7.y > > Good catch. Indeed. Thanks for reporting this. > Ard, should this be reverted? > With this fix applied, we'll end up kfree()'ing a pointer that is guaranteed to be NULL, on a code path that typically executes once per boot, if at all. So in practical terms, there is really no difference, and this is the only thing I personally care about. So I wouldn't mind if we just left them, unless there are other concerns wrt to maintenance, tidiness etc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) 2024-03-21 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel @ 2024-03-21 15:34 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2024-03-21 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Ted Brandston, linux-efi, stable, Jiao Zhou, Nicholas Bishop On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:28:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:59, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Ted Brandston wrote: > > > Hi, this is my first time posting to a kernel list (third try, finally > > > figured out the html-free -- sorry for the noise). > > > > > > I noticed that in the 6.6 kernel there's a fix commit from Ard [1] but > > > not the commit it's fixing ("efivarfs: Add uid/gid mount options"). > > > Same thing in 6.1 [2]. The commit being fixed doesn't appear until 6.7 > > > [3]. > > > > > > I'm not familiar with this code so it's unclear to me if this might > > > cause problems, but I figured I should point it out. > > > > > > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.6.y&id=48be1364dd387e375e1274b76af986cb8747be2c > > > [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.1.y > > > [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efivarfs/super.c?h=linux-6.7.y > > > > Good catch. > > Indeed. Thanks for reporting this. > > > Ard, should this be reverted? > > > > With this fix applied, we'll end up kfree()'ing a pointer that is > guaranteed to be NULL, on a code path that typically executes once per > boot, if at all. > > So in practical terms, there is really no difference, and this is the > only thing I personally care about. > > So I wouldn't mind if we just left them, unless there are other > concerns wrt to maintenance, tidiness etc. > Ok, let's leave it, as long as there's no bad side affects. greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-21 15:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CA+eDQTFQ45nWGmctp-CkK=xXXQQHc_DTkM1iN4m-0o5fCjt8VA@mail.gmail.com>
2024-03-21 14:43 ` efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html) Ted Brandston
2024-03-21 14:58 ` Greg KH
2024-03-21 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2024-03-21 15:34 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox