linux-kernel - Re: [patch] fs: avoid I

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

Message-Id: <20090311131915.14b8ac71.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:19:15 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jorge@...2.net,
	ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: avoid I_NEW inodes

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:57:48 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 11-03-09 04:29:18, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > How about this?
> >   Looks fine to me.
> 
> Thanks for the good review. Andrew, do you think you can apply this
> on top of the previous patch? I'm undecided as to whether they should
> go together or not. Probably the first one is a minimal fix that
> doesn't alter behaviour as much, but things seem more robust after this
> 2nd patch. I think both would probably be suitable for 2.6.29, being a
> nasty bug, but it isn't a recent regression AFAIKS.
> 

How's about we do fs-new-inode-i_state-corruption-fix.patch in 2.6.29
and fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch in 2.6.30?  We could backport
fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch into 2.6.29.x if needed.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/