-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 10/01/2012 11:46 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > On 2012-10-02 00:52:23, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, >> please let me know. > > Hi - Please drop this patch. It incorrectly calculates f_namelen > and I haven't had a chance to fix it yet. When I get a fix ready, > I'll forward the corrected patch to stable@v.k.o. Thanks! > > Tyler > >> >> ------------------ >> >> From: Tyler Hicks <tyhi...@canonical.com> >> >> commit 4a26620df451ad46151ad21d711ed43e963c004e upstream. >> >> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/885744 >> >> statfs() calls on eCryptfs files returned the wrong filesystem >> type and, when using filename encryption, the wrong maximum >> filename length. >> >> If mount-wide filename encryption is enabled, the cipher block >> size and the lower filesystem's max filename length will >> determine the max eCryptfs filename length. Pre-tested, known >> good lengths are used when the lower filesystem's namelen is 255 >> and a cipher with 8 or 16 byte block sizes is used. In other, >> less common cases, we fall back to a safe rounded-down estimate >> when determining the eCryptfs namelen. >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/885744 >> >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhi...@canonical.com> Reported-by: >> Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook >> <keesc...@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: John Johansen >> <john.johan...@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King >> <colin.k...@canonical.com> Acked-by: Stefan Bader >> <stefan.ba...@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner >> <tim.gard...@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau >> <w...@1wt.eu> --- fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c | 68 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> fs/ecryptfs/ecryptfs_kernel.h | 11 ++++++ >> fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c | 9 ++--- fs/ecryptfs/super.c >> | 18 ++++++++++- 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 14 >> deletions(-)
Tyler - this is the same patch that we're carrying in every kernel from Lucid to Quantal, right ? Colin has verified test cases for this, so I'm curious what you think is wrong. Something unique to 2.6.32 ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/885744/comments/5 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/885744/comments/9 rtg - -- Tim Gardner tim.gard...@canonical.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQatzmAAoJED12yEX6FEfKwpsP/jgSVRAb3X/Xu1Hob46T2TD3 XFClsr4xWlRzrHKsKxDHZxYUKy6TexEB9ZagjfFIlteqbyEqOB+Eq/p7cFrouIlm nX4/ERslly1H1tvm9x7hc3fUN3M8C5dwWsARjiRHY3luEZapIyMETnrikhahpZM5 xferd8RIowgTkDUfnLwBVhwagJSvpaBgavJq1Kn5+6ArEPWtT1AeiybHoJ0fOTb8 uNuCTjSHOhZh5ssConAyxhPiCgl0NYBdzHNPmuc+jO0ZDfb9NFfnNUUB6lRdrVhe QJBXX1N4N90R70nnQBHFNWJCdMJpjbE80PdE/T8IAsUqa8IFpHzfZZJYRgMVUbc9 2nkQ+ZLTSOIy2IZSCGZzWA/kf9bRGuUF/KcPizpKEB7s2QDlPp3Rrt/zs1DRbnt5 FBWmfgtb37Hpz94EGaMQzTIAj0iZXqZ68njww3c1ELllCMmj+z/0UKktLCOhz3dO ntlp8EUAD1F+Z5cMYxEP20Gn3EVvENSDfJnpdzWgTYzqNqFixCTC+cOWLl3OmCoL 2XxYDG6b6N6Y0dYMxjQV/DrptEXzr4kl70mLTa6yED6a3uxSSDGwRpM16feBR785 a83u27nVe9DLwJIo4D/gxmTiCsYZ7N5Y62hFMSwYgBFYrKDEq2wK6XizCerr11RB NZ3Rh1IDrSVxBPwqpS/w =z24H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
