linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "dax: fix NULL pointer in __dax_pmd

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, 2 Oct 2015 17:28:42 -0600
From:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "dax: fix NULL pointer in __dax_pmd_fault()"

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:11:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Ross Zwisler
> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > This reverts commit 8346c416d17bf5b4ea1508662959bb62e73fd6a5.
> >
> > This commit did fix the issue it intended to fix, but it turns out that
> > the locking changes introduced by these two commits:
> >
> > commit 843172978bb9 ("dax: fix race between simultaneous faults")
> > commit 46c043ede471 ("mm: take i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX")
> >
> > had other issues as well, so they need to just be reverted.
> 
> Wait, why introduce two points in the kernel history where we have a
> known uninitialized variable?  I'd say fix up the revert of "mm: take
> i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX" to address the conflict
> with the fix, one less patch and keeps the stability rolling forward.

Essentially because I wasn't sure about the rules regarding reverts, if there
are any.  I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you'd want a 1:1 relationship
between original commits and reverts.  If it's better to not have intermediate
breakage, sure, let's squash them.
--
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/