Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: don't allow r/w mounts if metadata blocks overlap the superblock

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 08:00:44AM +0530, Harsh Shandilya wrote:
> >
> >[PATCH 4.9.y 3/3] ext4: don't allow r/w mounts if metadata blocks
> I mentioned that the patches are for 3.18.y in the cover letter title but you're right it should have been here as well. Noted for later :)
>

As far as I can tell I wasn't cc'ed on the cover letter, so I didn't
see it.

> I've had to make changes to all the three patches, can you please
> Ack the backports so that Greg knows I didn't fubar anything? I'd
> appreciate it a lot.

If you want me to review the patches, can you do me a favor?

It looks like you sent two interleaved patches, one with 4 patches,
ahnd one with 3 patches, and with a very confusing in-reply-to headers
which completely confused the mail threading.  So this is what I see
in my inbox, and it is a Complete Mess:

  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.6K) ┬─>[PATCH 4/4] ext4: force revalidation of directory pointer afte
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (9.1K) ├─>[PATCH 1/4] ext4: add validity checks for bitmap block numbers
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (9.5K) │ └─>[PATCH 1/3] ext4: add validity checks for bitmap block numbe
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.7K) ├─>[PATCH 2/4] ext4: fail ext4_iget for root directory if unalloc
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.9K) │ └─>[PATCH 2/3] ext4: fail ext4_iget for root directory if unall
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (7.0K) └─>[PATCH 3/4] ext4: don't allow r/w mounts if metadata blocks ov
  Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (7.4K)   └─>[PATCH 3/3] ext4: don't allow r/w mounts if metadata blocks 

(What is this all about?  I didn't get the cover letter.  Why are some
of the patches revised, and why is the subsequent patch series have
only 3 patches instead of 4?  Why wasn't this all explained the
PATCH-v2 cover letter?  (Or maybe it was, but I'll never know because
I wasn't sent it, if it exists.  :-)

So can you please resend with a subject prefix that looks like this:
"[PATCH-v3 3.18 1/4]"

And send it as a free-standard mail thread, with the cover-letter
message not chained to anything else, and with each just being just a
reply to the previous one?  I want something that looks like this:

  Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (6.4K) [PATCH v4 0/4] e2scrub: online fsck for ext4
  Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (7.3K) ├─>[PATCH 1/4] tune2fs: allow setting the filesystem error bit
  Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong ( 29K) ├─>[PATCH 2/4] e2scrub: create online fsck tool of sorts
  Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (9.6K) ├─>[PATCH 3/4] e2scrub: create a script to scrub all ext* filesyst
  Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong ( 34K) └─>[PATCH 4/4] e2scrub: add service (cron, systemd) support

See the difference?

Thanks,

						- Ted