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  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]
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:10:47 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Andreas Gruenbacher <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,, Jeff Layton <>,
        Sage Weil <>, Ilya Dryomov <>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <>, Chao Yu <>,,,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <>,
        Adrian Hunter <>,,,,, Chris Mason <>,
        Josef Bacik <>,
        David Sterba <>,,
        Jan Kara <>, YueHaibing <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Chao Yu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fs: Fix page_mkwrite off-by-one errors

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't want to be the party pooper, but shouldn't this be a series
> with one patch to add the helper, and then once for each fs / piece
> of common code switched over?

The current patch in the iomap branch contains the chunks that add the
helper function, fix iomap, and whatever chunks for other filesystems
that don't cause /any/ merge complaints in for-next.  That means btrfs,
ceph, ext4, and ubifs will get fixed this time around.

Seeing as it's been floating around in for-next for a week now I'd
rather not rebase the branch just to rip out the four parts that haven't
given me any headaches so that they can be applied separately. :)

The acks from the other fs maintainers were very helpful, but at the
same time, I don't want to become a shadow vfs maintainer.

Therefore, whatever's in this v4 patch that isn't in [1] will have to be
sent separately.


> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:15:28PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Hi Darrick,
> > 
> > here's an updated version with the latest feedback incorporated.  Hope
> > you find that useful.
> > 
> > As far as the f2fs merge conflict goes, I've been told by Linus not to
> > resolve those kinds of conflicts but to point them out when sending the
> > merge request.  So this shouldn't be a big deal.
> Also this isn't really the proper way to write a commit message.  This
> text would go into the cover letter if it was a series..

<urk> Yeah.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists