linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35

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: <20100611200218.GE3018@think>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:02:18 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:00:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > The others all fix oopsen or big problems, and I think fixing warnings
> > helps avoid false negatives as others look for real problems?
> >
> > I'm happy to rebase out the 3 non-criticals.
> 
> There seems to be more than three non-criticals. There's the warning
> fixes, the "unused variables" thing, the "memdup_user()" thing, a
> couple of unnecessary NULL checks removed etc. On the whole, I do not
> get the feeling that the pull request was actively trying to be
> minimal, and that's what I really want to see.

No problem, I like to err on the side of pulling in safe fixes from the
automated checkers so they don't have to go through results again.

But, I've got a completely minimal rebase now and I'm double checking
it.

-chris

--
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/