linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/filemap: Limit page cache size to that supported by xarray

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, 25 Jun 2024 11:58:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 djwong@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, zhenyzha@...hat.com, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/filemap: Limit page cache size to that supported
 by xarray

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:51:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:

> > I could split them and feed 1&2 into 6.10-rcX and 3&4 into 6.11-rc1.  A
> > problem with this approach is that we're putting a basically untested
> > combination into -stable: 1&2 might have bugs which were accidentally
> > fixed in 3&4.  A way to avoid this is to add cc:stable to all four
> > patches.
> > 
> > What are your thoughts on this matter?
> 
> Especially 4 should also be CC stable, so likely we should just do it 
> for all of them.

Fine.  A Fixes: for 3 & 4 would be good.  Otherwise we're potentially
asking for those to be backported further than 1 & 2, which seems
wrong.

Then again, by having different Fixes: in the various patches we're
suggesting that people split the patch series apart as they slot things
into the indicated places.  In other words, it's not a patch series at
all - it's a sprinkle of independent fixes.  Are we OK thinking of it
in that fashion?