linux-kernel - Re: [ 68/89] xfs: fix _xfs_buf_find oops on blocks beyond the filesystem end

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130215150717.GR30652@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:07:17 -0600
From:	Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [ 68/89] xfs: fix _xfs_buf_find oops on blocks beyond the
 filesystem end

Hey,

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:29PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:05:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > Ok, how about I never apply any xfs stable kernel patch, unless you send
> > > > it to stable@...r.kernel.org?
> > > 
> > > Dave has made it clear that he doesn't want to be involved in maintaining
> > > -stable kernels.
> 
> I don't think you quite understand, Ben.

...

> > > > I have that rule in place for some other subsystems that don't want me
> > > > applying stuff that they aren't aware of, and have no problem doing the same
> > > > thing here.
> > > > 
> > > > Just let me know.
> 
> Sounds like a fine idea, Greg.
> 
> > > Here are the usual suspects:
> > > 
> > > Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
> > > Mark Tinguely <tinguely@....com>
> > > Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> > > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
> 
> I don't think it should be restricted to individuals.  The private
> thread used to request this backport is exactly why I didn't see
> the request in a timely fashion, and also the reason why we didn't
> end up with notifications for review going to xfs@....sgi.com.
> 
> Hence I'd suggest the only thing that matters is that there is a cc
> to xfs@....sgi.com, because that means all of the above people (and
> more) are on that list and hence have the best chance to see and
> review the backport request.
> 
> > Ok, but for this specific patch, did I do something wrong in taking it?
> 
> No, you didn't do anything wrong, Greg. Stuff went wrong on the XFS
> side of the fence.
> 
> > I guess I'll just let you send me xfs patches, is that ok with everyone
> > else? 
> 
> Sure, that would work, but only after the patches have been sent to
> xfs@....sgi.com for review and testing and been acked. And, of
> course, the stable submission woul dalso need to have a
> xfs@....sgi.com cc on it. ;)

Making sure that xfs@....sgi.com is Cc'd on -stable patches seems reasonable to
me.  No objection here, Dave.

-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/