linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 033/238] md: implement ->set_read

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, 26 Mar 2024 01:46:40 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 033/238] md: implement ->set_read_only to hook into
 BLKROSET processing

Hi Li Nan,

Could you please look into this (back port 9674f54e41ff to older stable
kernels)? If there is no clean back port, I would recommend we not do
the back port.

Thanks,
Song

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 12:40 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:26:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:04:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> How did we end up backporting all these block layer API changes?
> >
> > They were brought in as a dependency for 9674f54e41ff ("md: Don't clear
> > MD_CLOSING when the raid is about to stop").
> >
> > It's possible to work around bringing them during backport, but I
> > preferred to bring the dependencies instead.
>
> I really don't see what these giant backports bring us.  If people
> want all the changes they'd just be better off on a modern kernel
> rather than these frankenkernels.  The automatic backporting is
> gettind way out of hand.  If the MD maintainers want
> 9674f54e41ff, maybe they can send a tailor made backport?