[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120113161727.GB6519@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:17:27 -0600
From: Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count
Hey Greg,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:05:32AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Christoph & Greg,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 07:00:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:41:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:48:51PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > 3.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Just curious, how well tested are all the patches on 2.6.32 and 3.1 hat I only
> > > submitted for 3.0? I'd really prefer if they at least get an xfstest run
> > > before they get sent out to the world.
> >
> > I took these patches on my own as they were reported to fix a public
> > vulnerability which was assigned a CVE. They applied with no fuzz and
> > "looked correct" so I applied them on my own.
> >
> > If I shouldn't have, please let me know and I'll drop them.
> >
> > Otherwise, a nice run of xfstest by someone would be appreciated.
>
> I have a 3.1 test rig and will get this done today, then I'll go after
> 2.6.32.
I ran xfstests with 'xfs: validate acl count' and 'xfs: fix acl count
validation in xfs_acl_from_disk()' applied to 3.1-stable. It came out
ok. I'll get started on 2.6.32.
-Ben
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists