linux-ext4 - Re: fsck errors encountered when applying patch "ext4: fix BUG when calling ext4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d5ca277e0902251033l6a67abd3vd9deb08f52f5f3c6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:33:49 -0800
From:	Xiang Wang <xiangw@...gle.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
	Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: fsck errors encountered when applying patch "ext4: fix BUG when 
	calling ext4_error with locked block group"

Hey Ted,

Good news!
You are right! Taking the two commits as you suggested cleared our
bug. Thank you very much for pointing that out.

We may still be back-porting patches for a while until our internal
tree catches up with 2.6.29 or 2.6.30.
But we definitely will be much more careful in taking patches.

Thanks,
Xiang

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:37:35PM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
>> We know. Our qualifying process is not the most light weight and the
>> kernel moves fast. Normally we take a snapshot and qualify it, trying
>> to take upstream patches when we can and then also publishing bugs we
>> find. The problem is that with ext4 still undergoing active dev we
>> want to be able to keep our ext4 portion of the tree as up to date as
>> possible.
>
> I understand, and it's not a burden to answer questions like this.  I
> was just pointing out the effort that it will likely take to backport
> the percpu counter patches, since you will need to scan the your
> sources and make sure the behavioural changes in percpu_counter_sum
> isn't going to cause problems for you elsewhere, and that this sort of
> thing is probably going to get harder as time goes by, not easier.  I
> know how painful it can be, since I've been having a hard time
> backporting fixes to the 2.6.27 stable tree.
>
> The good news is that ext4 development is settling down, so if you
> manage to take another snapshot around 2.6.29 or 2.6.30, I suspect
> life will be much easier (at least as far as backporting patches for
> ext4 is concerned.)
>
> Best regards,
>
>                                        - Ted
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html