linux-kernel - Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count

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: <20120116155309.GC14857@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:53:09 -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 Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:19:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:17:27AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, how about the 3.0 release?
> > 
> > HCH would have given them a spin before he sent them to stable@.
> 
> You are right, sorry, for some reason I thought that was for 3.1, too
> many different kernel trees at the moment :(

My v2.6.32.54 test run came out ok too.

Thanks,
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/