linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [232/275] nfsd: wrong index used in inner loop

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: <20110402194059.GB8960@fieldses.org>
Date:	Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:40:59 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mijinlong@...fujitsu.com,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, bfields@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [232/275] nfsd: wrong index used in inner loop

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:44:00AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 31.03.2011 03:33, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Doh, so this 232/275 basically reverts that 180 and makes
> >> other change down the line, but keeps the subject intact.
> >> Especially useful that the two patches are so far away
> >> from each other (more than 50 patches in-between).
> >> Confusing :)
> >>
> >> So both are actually needed, apparently.
> > 
> > Sorry about that -- i ended up grabbing those from .32 and since
> > there were multiple releases in sequence it ended up this way.
> 
> It's definitely not your fault -- second patch should be
> named differently (since it does something else) but it's
> not.
> 
> > I can collapse the two patches.
> 
> Just be careful they don't end in the same _file_.  In
> the gregkh's stable-queue repository each patch is keept
> in a separate file named after the subject line, so that
> means just that - the same file.
> 
> > Are the leftover hunks after that good?
> 
> I remember original discussion when first patch has been
> posted (was fun to read the original code), but I missed
> second half of it.  So I re-read it and found the second
> part now, all is ok with it and with the resulting two-
> patch solution, except of the possible "patch name" clash,
> which may only when organizing patches in a plain directory.
> 
> Anyway, that's a good story I think, and the conclusion is -
> please name your patches correctly :)

Apologies, my fault--thanks for sorting it out.

--b.
--
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/