linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout beyond EOF

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: <20181129124756.GA25945@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:47:56 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout
 beyond EOF

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:14:59PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> Cherry picking only one of the 50-odd patches we've committed into
> late 4.19 and 4.20 kernels to fix the problems we've found really
> seems like asking for trouble. If you're going to back port random
> data corruption fixes, then you need to spend a *lot* of time
> validating that it doesn't make things worse than they already
> are...

Any reason why we can't take the 50-odd patches in their entirety?  It
sounds like 4.19 isn't fully fixed, but 4.20-rc1 is?  If so, what do you
recommend we do to make 4.19 working properly?

thanks,

greg k-h