linux-kernel - Re: [v6.6][PATCH 0/5] tracing: Backport of eventfs fixes for v6.6

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: <2023110620-wildcard-chrome-0d72@gregkh>
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 12:40:52 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [v6.6][PATCH 0/5] tracing: Backport of eventfs fixes for v6.6

On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 10:56:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Friday before the merge window opened, I received a bug report
> for the eventfs code that was in linux-next. I spent the next
> 5 days debugging it and not only fixing it, but it led to finding
> other bugs in the code. Several of these other bugs happen to
> also affect the 6.6 kernel.
> 
> The eventfs code was written in two parts to lower the complexity.
> The first part added just the dynamic creation of the eventfs
> file system and that was added to 6.6.
> 
> The second part went further and removed the one-to-one mapping between
> dentry/inode and meta data, as all events have the same files. It replaced
> the meta data for each file with callbacks, which caused quite a bit of
> code churn.
> 
> As the merge window was already open, when I finished all the fixes
> I just sent those fixes on top of the linux-next changes along with
> my pull request. That means, there are 5 commits that are marked
> stable (or should be marked for stable) that need to be applied to
> 6.6 but require a bit of tweaking or even a new way of implementing the fix!
> 
> After sending the pull request, I then checked out 6.6 an took those
> 5 changes and fixed them up on top of it. I ran them through all my
> tests that I use to send to Linus.
> 
> So these should be as good as the versions of the patches in Linus's tree.
> I waited until Linus pulled in those changes to send this series out.

All now queued up.  Note, patch 1/6 needs to go to older kernels as
well, according to your Fixes: tag, so if you could provide backports
for them as well that would be great.

thanks,

greg k-h