linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] fileattr series from Miklos

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:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:31:19 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] fileattr series from Miklos

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:42 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>         The branch is straight from Miklos' tree (it's #fileattr_v6 there),
> sat merged into vfs.git #for-next for a while.  Not sure what's the normal
> way to do pull requests in situations like that - do you prefer a reference
> to my tree (as below) or to mszeredi/vfs.git?

This is fine. The only downside here is that there was no signed tag,
which I would have preferred - either from you or from Milkos.

We've had this a couple of times before, and I've started trying to
"document" it with a "Pull X from Y via Z" thing. See for example

   git show 836d7f0572ca 70cd33d34c60

which is a similar kind of thing where Borislav just forwarded Ard's
work (and it has happened in the past a couple of times without those
kinds of notices).

Btw, unrelated to that, this pull request got a conflict with

  64708539cd23 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode
lock helpers")

which I think I sorted out correctly (the "inode_lock()" is now done
by the VFS layer for the fileattr things, and the btrfs use of
"btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock" ended up being undone). But just
to be safe I'm cc'ing the btrfs people involved. Please double-check
that I didn't screw something up.

(Note: it doesn't show up as a conflict in the merge itself, because
each piece was a straight "take the case from one side or the other",
and in this case "take it from the fileattr" side meant that the
inode_[un]lock -> btrfs_inode_[un]lock conversion for the fileattr
cases just went away).

                 Linus