linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5

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: <20191202235821.GF7335@magnolia>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:58:21 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:22:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:48 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, Stephen Rothwell reported a merge conflict with the y2038 tree at
> > the end of October[1].  His resolution looked pretty straightforward,
> > though the current y2038 for-next branch no longer changes fs/ioctl.c
> > (and the changes that were in it are not in upstream master), so that
> > may not be necessary.
> 
> The changes and conflicts are definitely still there (now upstream),
> I'm not sure what made you not see them.  But thanks for the note, I
> compared my end result with linux-next to verify.

Aha!  I pulled master yesterday morning, tried a test merge with xfs,
saw the lack of merge conflicts, and sent you the xfs pull request.  A
few hours later you pulled in the compat ioctl changes from Arnd's git
tree, but the branch in his repo that feeds the -next tree doesn't
contain the compat ioctl changes, so I assumed that meant he wasn't
going to send them for 5.5... and then thought better of myself and
attached an FYI anyway.

> My resolution is different from Stephen's. All my non-x86-64 FS_IOC_*
> cases just do "goto found_handler", because the compat case is
> identical for the native case outside of the special x86-64 alignment
> behavior, and I think that's what Arnd meant to happen.

Yeah, that looks correct to me.  Stephen's solution backed out the
changes that Arnd made for the !x86_64 compat ioctl case, so I or
someone would have had to re-apply them.

> There was some other minor difference too, but it's also possible I
> could have messed up, so cc'ing Stephen and Arnd on this just in case
> they have comments.

<nod> Thanks for sorting this out.

--D

> 
> 
>                Linus