linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.11-rc5

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: <wdxl2l4h2k3ady73fb4wiyzhmfoszeelmr2vs5h36xz3nl665s@n4qzgzsdekrg>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 22:47:59 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.11-rc5

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 10:35:38AM GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 10:33, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > What is to be gained by holding back fixes, if we've got every reason to
> > believe that the fixes are solid?
> 
> What is to be gained by having release rules and a stable development
> environment? I wonder.

Sure, which is why I'm not sending you anything here that isn't a fix
for a real issue.

(Ok, technically a few of those, the "missing trans_relock()" fixes are
theoretical, but if they are real then they're bad).