From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:00:21 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Ben Myers Subject: Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count Message-ID: <20120111150021.GB23608@suse.de> References: <20120110215031.GA19398@kroah.com> <20120110215024.482323323@clark.kroah.org> <20120111074135.GA30829@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120111074135.GA30829@lst.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:41:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:48:51PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > 3.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > Just curious, how well tested are all the patches on 2.6.32 and 3.1 hat I only > submitted for 3.0? I'd really prefer if they at least get an xfstest run > before they get sent out to the world. I took these patches on my own as they were reported to fix a public vulnerability which was assigned a CVE. They applied with no fuzz and "looked correct" so I applied them on my own. If I shouldn't have, please let me know and I'll drop them. Otherwise, a nice run of xfstest by someone would be appreciated. thanks, greg k-h