Re: [PATCH for v4.9 LTS 13/86] ubifs: allow encryption ioctls in compat mode

[Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:21:44PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>Am 19.06.2017 um 19:02 schrieb Eric Biggers:
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:24:31PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit a75467d910135905de60b3af3f11b3693625781e ]
>>>
>>> The ubifs encryption ioctls did not work when called by a 32-bit program
>>> on a 64-bit kernel.  Since 'struct fscrypt_policy' is not affected by
>>> the word size, ubifs just needs to allow these ioctls through, like what
>>> ext4 and f2fs do.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/ubifs/ioctl.c | 3 +++
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c b/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> index 3c7b29de0ca7..49d6c0f89c50 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c
>>> @@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ long ubifs_compat_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>>  	case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
>>>  		cmd = FS_IOC_SETFLAGS;
>>>  		break;
>>> +	case FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY:
>>> +	case FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY:
>>> +		break;
>>>  	default:
>>>  		return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>>>  	}
>>
>> UBIFS encryption was merged in 4.10, so this isn't needed in 4.9.

Thanks Eric, removed from queue.

>Yep. I wonder why this patch made it into the stable queue?

We're testing out a method of finding commits that aren't tagged for stable
but should be there. There is supposed to be more review for such commits
(I fucked it up in this case) + it's sent out for a review twice before
being shipped.

In general, it seems to have a good hit rate so far.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha