linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.2 019/102] xfs: don't dirty buffers beyond EOF

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: <1415217493.3398.11.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:58:13 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 019/102] xfs: don't dirty buffers beyond EOF

On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 18:09 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 10:28:03PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.2.64-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> I'm not sure it's a good idea to pull stuff like this back into
> really old stable kernels.

OK, then I'll drop this.

> This was part of a much larger series of
> bug fixes that were fairly carefully tested. I very much doubt that
> there is specific XFS test coverage on these older kernels that
> would determine if this has introduced problems or not....
[...]

No, I'm not testing XFS at all.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
The program is absolutely right; therefore, the computer must be wrong.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)