Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:21:19 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
        Rafael Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@linaro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        ltp@lists.linux.it, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, patches@kernelci.org,
        linux- stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 4.4 00/24] 4.4.137-stable review
Message-ID: <20180614102119.GA19094@kroah.com>
References: <20180612164816.587001852@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CADtBP2D4a2OdLsAgZ8sRFBhkh2jArviaYNzYrS7wqdmogyc=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180613210044.GA15146@kroah.com>
 <CABdQkv9uNjf7ARKBJ-sE_RVruMA5U9bTNo-EL_+7Rv8ZVJGY3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtBP2DZ0ceTtwaG7AdXV3xa16mQ6nu=gaqUYj7JSOLBdVD8cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180614063448.GB6021@kroah.com>
 <CA+G9fYut-A0L9iWJbzbSfmc=gjmQ17iabcPfXxqDKocwpYYTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180614090151.GA24997@kroah.com>
 <2072095076.26539556.1528969792388.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2072095076.26539556.1528969792388.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:49:52AM -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 02:24:25PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > On 14 June 2018 at 12:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:48:50PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
> > > >> On 13 June 2018 at 18:08, Rafael David Tinoco
> > > >> <rafaeldtinoco@kernelpath.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > >> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:47:49PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
> > > >> >>> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> > > >> >>> Regressions detected.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> NOTE:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> 1) LTP vma03 test (cve-2011-2496) broken on v4.4-137-rc1 because of:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>      6ea1dc96a03a mmap: relax file size limit for regular files
> > > >> >>>      bd2f9ce5bacb mmap: introduce sane default mmap limits
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>    discussion:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>      https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/341
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>    mainline commit (v4.13-rc7):
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>      0cc3b0ec23ce Clarify (and fix) MAX_LFS_FILESIZE macros
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>    should be backported to 4.4.138-rc2 and fixes the issue.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Really?  That commit says it fixes c2a9737f45e2 ("vfs,mm: fix a dead
> > > >> >> loop in truncate_inode_pages_range()") which is not in 4.4.y at all.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Did you test this out?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, the LTP contains the tests (last comment is the final test for
> > > >> > arm32, right before Jan tests i686).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Fixing MAX_LFS_FILESIZE fixes the new limit for mmap() brought by
> > > >> > those 2 commits (file_mmap_size_max()).
> > > >> > offset tested by the LTP test is 0xfffffffe000.
> > > >> > file_mmap_size_max gives: 0xFFFFFFFF000 as max value, but only after
> > > >> > the mentioned patch.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Original intent for this fix was other though.
> > > >>
> > > >> To clarify this a bit further.
> > > >>
> > > >> The LTP CVE test is breaking in the first call to mmap(), even before
> > > >> trying to remap and test the security issue. That start happening in
> > > >> this round because of those mmap() changes and the offset used in the
> > > >> LTP test. Linus changed limit checks and made them to be related to
> > > >> MAX_LFS_FILESIZE. Unfortunately, in 4.4 stable, we were missing the
> > > >> fix for MAX_LFS_FILESIZE (which before commit 0cc3b0ec23ce was less
> > > >> than the REAL 32 bit limit).
> > > >>
> > > >> Commit 0cc3b0ec23ce was made because an user noticed the FS limit not
> > > >> being what it should be. In our case, the 4.4 stable kernel, we are
> > > >> facing this 32 bit lower limit (than the real 32 bit real limit),
> > > >> because of the LTP CVE test, so we need this fix to have the real 32
> > > >> bit limit set for that macro (mmap limits did not use that macro
> > > >> before).
> > > >>
> > > >> I have tested in arm32 and Jan Stancek, who first responded to LTP
> > > >> issue, has tested this in i686 and both worked after that patch was
> > > >> included to v4.4-137-rc1 (my last test was even with 4.4.138-rc1).
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope that helps a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, thanks, it didn't apply cleanly but I've fixed it up now.
> > > 
> > > On the latest 4.4.138-rc1,
> > > LTP "cve-2011-2496" test still fails on arm32 beagleboard x15 and qemu_arm.
> > > 
> > > Summary
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > kernel: 4.4.138-rc1
> > > git repo:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > > git branch: linux-4.4.y
> > > git commit: 7d690c56754ef7be647fbcf7bcdceebd59926b3f
> > > git describe: v4.4.137-15-g7d690c56754e
> > > Test details:
> > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.137-15-g7d690c56754e
> > 
> > Ok, but what does this mean?  Is there a commit somewhere that I need to
> > pick up for 4.4.y that is already in newer kernels?
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I think the expectations was that:
>   0cc3b0ec23ce Clarify (and fix) MAX_LFS_FILESIZE macros
> has been included to linux-4.4.y HEAD, so they re-ran the tests.
> 
> Report from Naresh above looks like original report: LTP vma03 is cve-2011-2496 test.

And the test fails now?

Still confused.

greg k-h