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: <20180611175103.GA9244@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:51:03 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        "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 06/11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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 Btw, in my merge, this got superseded by commit 1e2e547a93a00ebc2158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?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/13/248
Got it. Thanks.

> 
>             Linus