linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much

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]

Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:52:16 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:41:14AM +0300, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On 6/19/15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I would much rather just include the "real" upstream patches, instead of
> > an odd backport.
> >
> > Jari, can you just backport the above referenced patches instead and
> > provide those backports?
> 
> I won't do that, sorry. It is more complicated than you think. It would
> involve backporting more VFS-re-write-patch-bombs than would be acceptable
> to stable kernel branch. Above mentioned d_walk() function that Al Viro
> modified in mainline don't even exist in 3.10.y and older brances.
> 
> My understanding is that complete backport of above mentioned "deal with
> deadlock in d_walk()" and "d_walk() might skip too much" patches to 3.10.y
> branch is to apply all these patches:
> 
> (a) backport of "deal with deadlock in d_walk()", by Ben Hutchings
> (b) dcache: Fix locking bugs in backported "deal with deadlock in d_walk()"
> (c) Al Viro's "d_walk() might skip too much" applied THREE times.
> 
> Of those, you merged (a) and (b) to 3.10.76 stable, and one copy of (c) to
> 3.10.80 stable.
> 
> The problem is that you didn't realize that "deal with deadlock in d_walk()"
> was applied to three different places in Ben Hutchings' backport, and that
> latest Al Viro's fix had to be also applied to three different places.
> Considering the sh*t that you have to deal with, nobody is blaming you for
> that mistake.
> 
> I am asking that you apply Al Viro's original "d_walk() might skip too much"
> patch TWO more times to 3.10.y stable branch. On both times, your patch tool
> will find the correct place of source file to modify, but with different
> offsets each time.

That's insane, and not how my tools work :(

Can you provide the needed backport?  If it was in an earlier email in
this series, sorry, it's long gone from my mailbox, can you resend it?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/