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=-13.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 116D8C433DF for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B225220897 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="J3nyzUL1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2408886AbgJPOg6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:36:58 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:60020 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2408874AbgJPOg6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:36:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-172-233-15.hsd1.md.comcast.net [73.172.233.15]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A02020B4907; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 8A02020B4907 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1602859017; bh=QdB6hOLIafPBVzYZzrgl4ZkzYOSFRgWbJR+dtVU32yE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=J3nyzUL1+BZSwre+3T3Xkg6psxeRrOjRAwMAI1lAiifS7yO5kk52Ct8ppAQRifGng K8Vd4lbQI53/4dh/WulZxf9BvZfTeKK+yuAxL/PXrsjITvuHx4sAvR/cPqidjaW7D2 KWb8nft/swoPTLcksqnlB5ta+T4eILdCgDfr+H2Y= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.4 0/3] Update SELinuxfs out of tree and then swapover To: Sasha Levin , Paul Moore Cc: Greg KH , stable@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley , selinux@vger.kernel.org, James Morris References: <20201015192956.1797021-1-dburgener@linux.microsoft.com> <20201016050036.GB461792@kroah.com> <9aeaa66d-d369-a1eb-7a07-08d9244585f3@linux.microsoft.com> <20201016142213.GV2415204@sasha-vm> From: Daniel Burgener Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:36:55 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201016142213.GV2415204@sasha-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On 10/16/20 10:22 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:55:25AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Daniel Burgener >> wrote: >>> Yes, thank you.  I will fix up the series with the third commit >>> included, and add commit ids.  Thanks. >> >> Greg and I have different opinions on what is classified as a good >> candidate for the -stable trees, but in my opinion this patch series >> doesn't qualify.  There are a lot of dependencies, it is intertwined >> with a lot of code, and the issue that this patchset fixes has been >> around for a *long* time.  I personally feel the risk of backporting >> this to -stable does not outweigh the potential wins. > > My understanding is that while the issue Daniel is fixing here has been > around for a while, it's also very real - the reports suggest a failure > rate of 1-2% on boot. As a point of clarity, I think that the issue occurs much less frequently on boot than it does with a policy load during ordinary operation, since there are a much higher volume of userspace policy manager lookups on a policy_load once the system is up.  I think 1-2% is roughly accurate for what we're seeing in the environment I'm working on for a policy load during normal steady state operation.  I don't have hard numbers on policy load during boot, but I would expect it to be quite a bit lower.  We have seen it, but it's not the common case we're seeing. > > I do understand your concerns around this series, but given it was just > fixed upstream we don't have a better story than "sit tight for the > next LTS" to tell to users affected by this issue. > > Is there a scenario where you'd feel safer with the series? I suspect > that if it doesn't go into upstream stable Daniel will end up carrying > it out of tree anyway, so maybe we can ask Daniel to do targetted > testing for the next week or two and report back? > I believe my team will intend to carry this out of tree, yes.  If additional data from that would be helpful, I'd be happy to provide it. -Daniel