WTF: patch "[PATCH] landlock: Change landlock_restrict_self(2) check ordering" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.18-stable tree?

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.18-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From eba39ca4b155c54adf471a69e91799cc1727873f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Micka=C3=ABl=20Sala=C3=BCn?= <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:08:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] landlock: Change landlock_restrict_self(2) check ordering
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

According to the Landlock goal to be a security feature available to unprivileges processes, it makes more sense to first check for no_new_privs before checking anything else (i.e. syscall arguments).

Merge inval_fd_enforce and unpriv_enforce_without_no_new_privs tests into the new restrict_self_checks_ordering. This is similar to the previous commit checking other syscalls.

index a7396220c9d4..507d43827afe 100644
@@ -405,10 +405,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(landlock_restrict_self, const int, ruleset_fd, const __u32,
 	if (!landlock_initialized)
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
-	/* No flag for now. */
-	if (flags)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	/*
 	 * Similar checks as for seccomp(2), except that an -EPERM may be
 	 * returned.

@@ -417,6 +413,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(landlock_restrict_self, const int, ruleset_fd, const __u32,
 	    !ns_capable_noaudit(current_user_ns(), CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
 		return -EPERM;
 
+	/* No flag for now. */
+	if (flags)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
 	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_READ);
 	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))