linux-kernel - Re: [34-longterm 100/247] NFS: fix the return value of nfs_file

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: <3853.1308880989@jrobl>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:03:09 +0900
From:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc:	stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable-review@...nel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [34-longterm 100/247] NFS: fix the return value of nfs_file_fsync()


Paul Gortmaker:
> By the commit af7fa16 2010-08-03 NFS: Fix up the fsync code
> close(2) became returning the non-zero value even if it went well.
> nfs_file_fsync() should return 0 when "status" is positive.
>
> [PG: in 34, nfs_file_fsync is just a wrapper around nfs_do_fsync,
>  so the related code and actual change lands in nfs_do_fsync here.]

In these 247 patches, I could not find the backport of
	af7fa16 2010-08-03 NFS: Fix up the fsync code
If you bring the commit af7fa16 into 2.6.34.10, then you will need this
one (0702099bd in upstream) too. Otherwise I am afraid it is
unnecessary.
But I'd ask a reply from Trond Myklebust.


J. R. Okajima
--
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/