Hello,
I would like to request the backport of the commit below to address a kernel panic in ocfs2 that was identified by Valentin Vidić in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20230401214151.1243189-1-vvidi...
While Valentin provides his own patch in the original message, the preferred patch is one that went up to Linus during the last merge window; Valentin has tested the patch and confirmed that it resolved the reported problem.
commit de3004c874e740304cc4f4a83d6200acb511bbda Author: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com Date: Tue Mar 14 09:17:16 2023 +0100
ocfs2: Switch to security_inode_init_security()
In preparation for removing security_old_inode_init_security(), switch to security_inode_init_security().
Extend the existing ocfs2_initxattrs() to take the ocfs2_security_xattr_info structure from fs_info, and populate the name/value/len triple with the first xattr provided by LSMs.
As fs_info was not used before, ocfs2_initxattrs() can now handle the case of replicating the behavior of security_old_inode_init_security(), i.e. just obtaining the xattr, in addition to setting all xattrs provided by LSMs.
Supporting multiple xattrs is not currently supported where security_old_inode_init_security() was called (mknod, symlink), as it requires non-trivial changes that can be done at a later time. Like for reiserfs, even if EVM is invoked, it will not provide an xattr (if it is not the first to set it, its xattr will be discarded; if it is the first, it does not have xattrs to calculate the HMAC on).
Finally, since security_inode_init_security(), unlike security_old_inode_init_security(), returns zero instead of -EOPNOTSUPP if no xattrs were provided by LSMs or if inodes are private, additionally check in ocfs2_init_security_get() if the xattr name is set.
If not, act as if security_old_inode_init_security() returned -EOPNOTSUPP, and set si->enable to zero to notify to the functions following ocfs2_init_security_get() that no xattrs are available.
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com Acked-by: Joseph Qi joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar zohar@linux.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:51:59PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request the backport of the commit below to address a kernel panic in ocfs2 that was identified by Valentin Vidić in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20230401214151.1243189-1-vvidi...
While Valentin provides his own patch in the original message, the preferred patch is one that went up to Linus during the last merge window; Valentin has tested the patch and confirmed that it resolved the reported problem.
How far should this patch be backported?
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:07 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:51:59PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request the backport of the commit below to address a kernel panic in ocfs2 that was identified by Valentin Vidić in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20230401214151.1243189-1-vvidi...
While Valentin provides his own patch in the original message, the preferred patch is one that went up to Linus during the last merge window; Valentin has tested the patch and confirmed that it resolved the reported problem.
How far should this patch be backported?
The problem is only present when the BPF LSM is enabled, which I believe was merged upstream in the v5.7 release, so anything v5.7 or later should be affected and thus a good backport target.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:34:11PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:07 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:51:59PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request the backport of the commit below to address a kernel panic in ocfs2 that was identified by Valentin Vidić in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20230401214151.1243189-1-vvidi...
While Valentin provides his own patch in the original message, the preferred patch is one that went up to Linus during the last merge window; Valentin has tested the patch and confirmed that it resolved the reported problem.
How far should this patch be backported?
The problem is only present when the BPF LSM is enabled, which I believe was merged upstream in the v5.7 release, so anything v5.7 or later should be affected and thus a good backport target.
Thanks, now queued up.
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org