linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

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:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:52:25 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:36:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/13/22 8:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   block/bio.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   35006342b739 ("block: ensure iov_iter advances for added pages")
> >   248022ffae3f ("block: ensure bio_iov_add_page can't fail")
> >   7b1ccdf617ca ("block: fix leaking page ref on truncated direct io")
> >   9a6469060316 ("block: convert to advancing variants of iov_iter_get_pages{,_alloc}()")
> > 
> > from the vfs tree and commits:
> > 
> >   5a044eef1265 ("block: ensure iov_iter advances for added pages")
> >   ac3c48e32c04 ("block: ensure bio_iov_add_page can't fail")
> >   44b6b0b0e980 ("block: fix leaking page ref on truncated direct io")
> > 
> > from the block tree.
> 
> I pinged Al about this the other day, but haven't heard back yet. It's
> not clear to me what block bits he has in his tree. We'll get it sorted
> out.

Ones from Keith's branch - #alignment-fixes-rebased in there.  Looks like
one of the commits in it got changed since then - the difference in
__bio_iov_iter_get_pages() (unsigned int i initialization).

Sigh...  I'll rebase on top of that.

Al, digging through the vicinity of propagate_umount() and cursing himself
and ebiederman in about equal proportions since the last weekend...