WTF: patch "[PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.13-stable tree?

PATCH [email protected] 3 participants 5 messages Oct 12, 2017

Subsystems (2)

Stable branch Secure computing

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2017-10-12 11:39 UTC #0 lore raw

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-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 ------------------

Quoted 1 line

From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static

The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does not need to be in global scope, so make it static.

Cleans up sparse warning:
symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by Colin Ian King <[email protected]>

Fixes 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")

Cc [email protected]

Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>

kernel/seccomp.c +1 -1

index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
 {
 	/* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
 	refcount_inc(&filter->usage);

Colin Ian King

2017-10-12 11:45 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · On 12/10/17 12:39, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-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.

I'm fairly sure my original patch didn't cc stable, so not sure why it ended up here either.

Colin

Quoted 37 lines

thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static
The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does not need to be in global scope, so make it static.
Cleans up sparse warning:
symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Fixes 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
kernel/seccomp.c +1 -1
index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
 {
 	/* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
 	refcount_inc(&filter->usage);

Kees Cook

2017-10-12 14:18 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 47 lines · Colin Ian King

Quoted 9 lines · On 12/10/17 12:39, [email protected] wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-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.
I'm fairly sure my original patch didn't cc stable, so not sure why it ended up here either.
Colin
Quoted 31 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static
The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does not need to be in global scope, so make it static.
Cleans up sparse warning:
symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Fixes 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
kernel/seccomp.c +0 -0
index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
      return 0;
 }
 

Quoted 6 lines

kernel/seccomp.c static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags, · line 479

Quoted 6 lines

kernel/seccomp.c +1 -1

-void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
 {
      /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
      refcount_inc(&filter->usage);

I added this to -stable because the prior patch (66a733ea6b61) that went to stable introduced a regression for Sparse. Is this not okay?

-Kees

Signature · 2 lines

Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Colin Ian King

2017-10-12 14:20 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 59 lines · Kees Cook

Quoted 47 lines · Colin Ian King
Quoted 9 lines · On 12/10/17 12:39, [email protected] wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-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.
I'm fairly sure my original patch didn't cc stable, so not sure why it ended up here either.
Colin
Quoted 31 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static
The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does not need to be in global scope, so make it static.
Cleans up sparse warning:
symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Fixes 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
kernel/seccomp.c +0 -0
index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
      return 0;
 }
 
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/seccomp.c static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags, · line 479
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/seccomp.c +1 -1
-void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
 {
      /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
      refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
I added this to -stable because the prior patch (66a733ea6b61) that went to stable introduced a regression for Sparse. Is this not okay?

Quoted 2 lines

-Kees

I don't think it's a regression per-se, it's just a warning found by static analysis tools and it won't show up in normal gcc builds.

Colin

Kees Cook

2017-10-12 14:29 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 60 lines · Colin Ian King

Quoted 49 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 47 lines · Colin Ian King
Quoted 9 lines · On 12/10/17 12:39, [email protected] wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-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.
I'm fairly sure my original patch didn't cc stable, so not sure why it ended up here either.
Colin
Quoted 31 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 084f5601c357e4ee59cf0712200d3f5c4710ba40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: make function __get_seccomp_filter static
The function __get_seccomp_filter is local to the source and does not need to be in global scope, so make it static.
Cleans up sparse warning:
symbol '__get_seccomp_filter' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Fixes 66a733ea6b61 ("seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()")
Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Kees Cook <[email protected]>
kernel/seccomp.c +0 -0
index bb3a38005b9c..0ae832e13b97 100644
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
      return 0;
 }
 
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/seccomp.c static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags, · line 479
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/seccomp.c +1 -1
-void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+static void __get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
 {
      /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
      refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
I added this to -stable because the prior patch (66a733ea6b61) that went to stable introduced a regression for Sparse. Is this not okay?

Quoted 2 lines

I don't think it's a regression per-se, it's just a warning found by static analysis tools and it won't show up in normal gcc builds.

If this isn't okay, I'm fine to drop it from -stable. Sorry for the noise Greg! I was considering it a build regression, since there are people running analyzers on -stable, etc.

-Kees

Signature · 2 lines

Kees Cook
Pixel Security