linux-kernel - Re: Bug 216559 - btrfs crash root mount RAID0 caused by ac0677348f3c2

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:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:11:04 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Viktor Kuzmin <kvaster@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Bug 216559 - btrfs crash root mount RAID0 caused by ac0677348f3c2

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:00:30PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 14.10.22 13:07, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker speaking.
> >>
> >> David, I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org apparently
> >> caused by a changed of yours. As many (most?) kernel developer don't
> >> keep an eye on the bug-tracker, I decided to forward the report by mail.
> >> Quoting from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216559 :
> > 
> > Thanks, you don't need to forward the mails as I'm on CC of all bugzilla
> > updates where the btrfs virtual assignee is also present.
> 
> Hmmm. Do you want to make my life easier or want to get less mail? I
> thought about this for a while. Unless you strongly object, I would like
> to continue forwarding them for the following reasons:
> 
> * you might be on vacation or AFK for other reasons; your Comaintainers
> that were CCed would know and likely then help out
> * CCing the list makes other people notice the issue and gives them a
> chance to help (Qu Wenruo replied in bugzilla shortly after I sent the
> mail you quoted, which might or might not be due to my mail).
> * regression tracking is hard already; it would make it a lot harder if
> I'm forced to make and maintain notes how each and every maintainer
> would like me to handle situations like this
> * right now I need to send one mail anyway to add a regression to the
> tracking

No problem with continuing the way it is, the reasons above make sense.