linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 033/110] bfs: add sanity check at bfs_fill

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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:31:33 +0000
From:   Tigran Aivazian <aivazian.tigran@...il.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzbot <syzbot+71c6b5d68e91149fc8a4@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 033/110] bfs: add sanity check at bfs_fill_super()

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:10, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Your patch has to apply on top of the existing one, so there's not an
> issue here.
> And might as well fix it now, as I can never count on a "future" patch
> getting merged.

It is already fixed, i.e. it applies cleanly against the existing
(i.e. 4.19.5) kernel. What I meant is that, there is little or no
point in applying a short-lived patch as there is no conceivable
reason that it can become a long-lived one.

Whatever else may have changed (all for the better of course) in the
past 20 years in Linux kernel development, I presume the basic
fundamental fact that no patch is accepted if the relevant maintainer
has objections to it is still intact. And I am both the author and the
maintainer of the BFS filesystem.

Kind regards,
Tigran