linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10 090/180] xfs: xfs_iflush

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: <20160822051826.GA4522@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:18:26 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 090/180] xfs: xfs_iflush_cluster fails to abort on
 error

Hi Dave,

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:21:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > -	if (error || !bp) {
> > +	if (error == -EAGAIN) {
> 
> Wrong. Errors changed sign in XFS in 3.17.

Ah my bad, sorry for this.

> /rant
> 
> So, after just having to point this out (again!) for a different
> stable kernel patchset review, and this specific problem causing
> user-reported stable kernel regression and filesystem corruption
> *months ago*. That resulted in discussion and new stable commits to
> fix the problem. So now I'm left to wonder about the process of
> stable kernels.

Yep I remember this discussion now, I'm sorry.

> AFAICT, stable kernel maintainers are not watching what happens with
> other stable kernels, nor are they talking to other stable kernel
> maintainers. I should not have to tell every single stable kernel
> maintainer that a specific patch needs to be changed after it's
> already been reported broken, triaged and fixed in other stable
> kernels. You've all got a record that the patch needs to be included
> in a stable kernel, but nobody is seems to notice when it comes to
> fixing problems with a stable patch even when that all happens on
> stable@...r.kernel.org.
> 
> Seriously, guys, pick up your act a bit and start talking between
> yourselvesi and tracking regressions and fixes so the burden of
> catching known reported and fixed problems with backports doesn't
> rely on the upstream developers noticing the problem when hundreds
> of patches for random stable kernels go past on lkml every week...

We definitely do exchange quite a bit and I pick patches from 3.14 for
3.10, but sometimes I can simply pick the original one for various
reasons (eg: I if had queued its upstream ID earlier). That's also why
the review process helps. I'm sincerely sorry that I failed on this one
and that you had to deal with it again, I'm going to fix it now.

Thanks,
Willy