[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190509161135.00b542e5b4d0996b5089ea02@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 16:11:35 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: yuyufen <yuyufen@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: always use address space in inode for
resv_map pointer
On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:16:09 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> > I think it is better to add fixes label, like:
> > Fixes: 58b6e5e8f1ad ("hugetlbfs: fix memory leak for resv_map")
> >
> > Since the commit 58b6e5e8f1a has been merged to stable, this patch also be needed.
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg298740.html
>
> It must have been the AI that decided 58b6e5e8f1a needed to go to stable.
grr.
> Even though this technically does not fix 58b6e5e8f1a, I'm OK with adding
> the Fixes: to force this to go to the same stable trees.
Why are we bothering with any of this, given that
: Luckily, private_data is NULL for address spaces in all such cases
: today but, there is no guarantee this will continue.
?
Even though 58b6e5e8f1ad was inappropriately backported, the above
still holds, so what problem does a backport of "hugetlbfs: always use
address space in inode for resv_map pointer" actually solve?
And yes, some review of this would be nice
Powered by blists - more mailing lists