Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vfs: iversion truncate bug fix

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:19 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 08:54 -0800, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:17:12PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:06 -0800, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:46:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:33:49 -0500
Mimi Zohar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:26:30 -0500
Mimi Zohar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 12:54 +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:

quoted

When a file is truncated with truncate()/ftruncate() and then closed,
iversion is not updated. This patch uses ATTR_SIZE flag as an indication
to increment iversion.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <redacted>

Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <redacted> 
(Stable should be cc'ed on this patch.)

why?

Why backported?

Yes.  If you want to submit the patch to the -stable maintainer then
you should explain to him why the fix is important enough to warrant
doing that.  That involves explaining the user-visible effects of
the bug.

quoted

 The IMA measurement list could be incomplete.

In more detail than this.  Maybe he knows what the above sentence
means, but I sure don't.

Nope, I don't either :)

On fput(), i_version is used to detect and flag files that have changed
and need to be re-measured in the IMA measurement policy.  When a file
is truncated with truncate()/ftruncate() and then closed, i_version is
not updated.  As a result, although the file has changed, it will not be
re-measured and added to the IMA measurement list on subsequent access.

And what am I supposed to do with this?

Please, go read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to
properly submit patches to the stable kernel tree.  The information here
needs to be in the patch changelog itself, not in some random email
thread that will get lost instantly into my email-archive-from-hell
after I am done reading this.

greg k-h

Yes, I've read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt and think this
patch meets the criteria for being backported.

As far as I'm aware, this patch hasn't been upstreamed yet and is
waiting for someone, besides myself, to Ack it.  Once Acked, either
Dmitry or I can send a pull request with an updated patch description.
Should this patch go in via the security tree?

If it hasn't been upstreamed yet, just make sure you put

cc: stable@kernel.org

In the signoffs of the patch you're sending upstream and the backport
will occur automatically when the patch is finally upstreamed.

James