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]
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 01:53:02 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,,,
        Thilo Fromm <>,
        Jeremi Piotrowski <>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 07:31:03AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>On 09.12.22 07:12, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 06:16:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Maybe I should talk to Greg again to revert backported changes like
>>> 1be97463696c until fixes for them are ready.
>> The fix is in the ext4 git tree, and it's ready to be pushed to Linus
>> when the merge window opens --- presumably, on Sunday.
>> So it's probably not worth it to revert the backported change, only to
>> reapply immediately afterwards.
>Definitely agreed, I was more taking in the general sense (sorry, should
>have been clearer), as it's not the first time some backport exposes
>existing problems that take a while to get analyzed and fixed in
>mainline. Which is just how it is sometimes, hence a revert and a
>reapply of that backport (once the fix is available) in stable/longterm
>sounds appropriate to me to prevent users from running into known problems.

It's a balancing act: reverting a fix would mean that we reintroduce an
issue that was previously fixed back to users. It's not always the right
thing to do, and sometimes we won't.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists