Re: efivarfs fixes without the commit being fixed in 6.1 and 6.6 (resending without html)
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/e... [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efiv... [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/fs/efiv...
Thanks!
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.
Good catch. Ard, should this be reverted?
thanks,
greg k-h
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.
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.
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.
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
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Ard Biesheuvel -
Greg KH -
Ted Brandston