linux-kernel - Re: LVM snapshot broke between 4.14 and 4.16

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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:33:50 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, wgh@...lan.ru,
        Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: LVM snapshot broke between 4.14 and 4.16

On Fri, Aug 03 2018 at  3:11pm -0400,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > But you're making Zdenek's response into mine and threathening to no
> > longer pull from me.
> 
> No. I'm *very* unhappy about how you seem to think that Zdenek's
> response was even half-way ok, and you jumped in when Ted said it
> wasn't.

I'm inclined not to make people who aren't kernel developers cry over
spilt milk.

But zero tolerance of kernel regressions is important.  And that mantra
wasn't properly impressed upon lvm2 developers.