linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the aio tree with the vfs tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160315131244.GM17923@kvack.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:12:44 -0400
From:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the aio tree with the vfs tree

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:19:39AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:07:12AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > There *is* a reason for code review.  Or, at least, asking somebody familiar
> > with the code you are working with whether some assumption you are making
> > is true or false.  Me, for example, in our conversation regarding earlier parts
> > of aio.git queue about a week ago.  Or at any other point.
> 
> While we are at it, 150a0b49 ("aio: add support for async openat()") is also
> crap.  fs_struct and files_struct is nowhere near enough.  And yes, I realize
> that your application probably doesn't step into it.  Which means that these
> patches are just fine for your private kernel.  _Not_ for mainline.
> 
> Reviewed-and-NAKed-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>

You've had two months to make this comment, so I'm glad you've finally 
done so.

		-ben
-- 
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."