linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker does not distinguish lock level

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: <20180511142256.ecabae077ddd5fb18df29959@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 14:22:56 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Larry Chen <lchen@...e.com>
Cc:     mfasheh@...sity.com, jlbec@...lplan.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker does not distinguish
 lock level

On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:16:51 +0800 Larry Chen <lchen@...e.com> wrote:

> > Nice changelog, but it gives no information about the severity of the
> > bug: how often does it hit and what is the end-user impact.
> >
> > This info is needed so that I and others can decide which kernel
> > version(s) need the patch, so please always include it when fixing a
> > bug, thanks.
> 
> Thanks for your review and feel sorry for not providing enough information.
> 
> For the status quo of ocfs2, without this patch, neither a bug nor end-user
> impact will be caused because the wrong logic is avoided.
> 
> But I'm afraid this generic interface, may be called by other
> developers in future and used in this situation.
> 
>      a process
> ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=0)
> ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=1)

OK, thanks.

> By the way, should I resend this patch with this info included?

I pasted the above into my copy of the changelog so we're good.