linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork during ifree

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: <20180328011152.GA7561@sasha-vm>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 01:11:55 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork
 during ifree

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:06:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Mon 26-03-18 19:54:31, Sasha Levin wrote:
>[...]
>> About half a year ago. I'm not sure about the no visibility part -
>> maintainers and authors would receive at least 3 mails for each patch
>> that got in this way, and would have at least a week (usually a lot
>> more) to object to the inclusion. Did you not receive any mails from
>> me?
>
>Well, I was aware of your emails yet my free time didn't really allow me
>to follow those patch bombs. I responded only when some email subject
>hit my eyes as being non-stable candidate. So by no means the MM
>backports were reviewed by me. And considering how hard it is to get any
>review for MM patches in general I strongly suspect that others didn't
>review either.

Being aware is different than saying it was snuck in without anyone
knowing.

>In general I am quite skeptical about the automagic backports
>selections, to be honest. MM patches should be reasonably good at
>selecting stable backports and adding more patches on top just risks
>regressions.

Okay, let's take mm/ as a subsystem that is doing a good job with
submitting stuff to -stable.

There were 40 patches in total going into the 4.14 LTS tree that touched
mm/. Out of those, 5 were selected via the "automagic" process:

> 647a37ec1a17 mm/frame_vector.c: release a semaphore in 'get_vaddr_frames()'
> d91c3f2e540f mm/early_ioremap: Fix boot hang with earlyprintk=efi,keep
> b2ba0bd34695 kmemleak: add scheduling point to kmemleak_scan()
> 5ca94e03675a slub: fix sysfs duplicate filename creation when slub_debug=O
> 342ee8775800 mm, x86/mm: Fix performance regression in get_user_pages_fast()

The only "questionable" one here I see is the performance regression
one, which I decided to keep in because it's a rather severe one in a
common code path.

Even good subsystems might sometimes miss a patch or two.

But yes, I've received less response from maintainers than I expected,
so I'll switch it to an opt-in model for new patches that go upstream.


--
Thanks,
Sasha