linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs update for 4.18-rc1

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: <CA+55aFw13-=qJ44s+_SM7csCPu0EeQf4bSzsf+tfPes=cBVBOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:34:24 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc:     "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" 
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs update for 4.18-rc1

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:52 AM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Eric Biggers (4):
>       f2fs: call unlock_new_inode() before d_instantiate()

Btw, in my merge, this got superseded by commit 1e2e547a93a00ebc2158
("do d_instantiate/unlock_new_inode combinations safely"), because the
ordering of that d_instantiate() and unlock_new_inode() was subtler
than just doing the unlock first.

I can't test the end result, so you guys should double-check whatever
xfstest you ran originall, ok?

            Linus