linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] nfsd changes for 4.20

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:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:44:18 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jlayton@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] nfsd changes for 4.20

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 01:06:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:55 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Pulled,
> 
> Oh, I take that back. Semantic conflict with locking name change
> (recv_lock -> queue_lock) and new code in
> 
>    net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_backchannel.c
> 
> exposed by my build test.
> 
> And looking around, it was reported in linux-next, but you didn't
> mention it, which kind of makes the whole reporting pointless.
> 
> Guys, what is the point of linux-next if you then don't *react* to it?
> The correct reaction is to say during the merge window that "hey,
> linux-next showed this issue", just so that I know about it and it
> doesn't take me by surprise.
> 
> Yes, my normal build tests caught it, and I've fixed up my merge, but
> this isn't how things are supposed to work.

Apologies, thanks for the correction.

I see Stephen Rothwell's message from October 5.  I think at the time I
said "OK, looks minor, just something to mention in the pull request",
then forgot about it.

In future when that happens, I'll add some kind of reminder to my
request-pull script.

Stephen also sent a warning about a merge conflict with the vfs tree
(not merged yet, I think) but I assume that's not as big a deal since it
should actually show up at merge time, not build time:

	http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181029122121.7758fed4@canb.auug.org.au

--b.