Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken
Message-Id: <20210205143550.58d3530918459eafa918ad0c@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <161248518659.21478.2484341937387294998.stgit@noble1>
References: <161248518659.21478.2484341937387294998.stgit@noble1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
> in a non-"standard" way ...  though the "standard" isn't documented, so
> they can be excused.  The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
> case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.
> 
> These three patches:
>  1/ document and explain the problem
>  2/ fix the problem user in x86
>  3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp
> 

1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and
interface") was August 2018, so I don't think "recent" applies here?

I didn't look closely, but it appears that the sctp procfs file is
world-readable.  So we gave unprivileged userspace the ability to leak
kernel memory?

So I'm thinking that we aim for 5.12-rc1 on all three patches with a cc:stable?