ACK: [SRU][J][PATCH 0/1] CVE-2024-50060

[Masahiro Yamada]

On 3/25/26 10:37, Tim Whisonant wrote:
> SRU Justification:
>
> [Impact]
>
> io_uring: check if we need to reschedule during overflow flush
>
> In terms of normal application usage, this list will always be empty.
> And if an application does overflow a bit, it'll have a few entries.
> However, nothing obviously prevents syzbot from running a test case
> that generates a ton of overflow entries, and then flushing them can
> take quite a while.
>
> Check for needing to reschedule while flushing, and drop our locks and
> do so if necessary. There's no state to maintain here as overflows
> always prune from head-of-list, hence it's fine to drop and reacquire
> the locks at the end of the loop.
>
> [Fix]
>
> Questing: not affected
> Noble:    fixed separately
> Jammy:    backported from upstream
> Focal:    not affected
> Bionic:   not affected
> Xenial:   not affected
> Trusty:   not affected
>
> [Test Plan]
>
> Compile and boot tested.
>
> [Where problems could occur]
>
> The change affects io_uring in the overflow list processing
> code. Issues might affect slow consumer processes that cause
> the overflow path to be taken.
>
> Jens Axboe (1):
>    io_uring: check if we need to reschedule during overflow flush
>
>   io_uring/io_uring.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada at canonical.com>