From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Avoid that scsi_exit_rq() triggers a use-after-free Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1493911964.2692.4.camel@sandisk.com> References: <20170503180911.24326-1-bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> <20170504073013.GA3684@lst.de> <1493911596.2692.2.camel@sandisk.com> <20170504151525.GA16489@sbauer-Z170X-UD5> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170504151525.GA16489@sbauer-Z170X-UD5> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <03A281746741B0458CEFDD509EDDACDF@namprd04.prod.outlook.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "scott.bauer@intel.com" Cc: "hch@lst.de" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com" , "jack@suse.cz" , "hare@suse.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:15 -0600, Scott Bauer wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:26:37PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Please just add a flag to ->flags instead of adding a whole new field= . > > >=20 > > > Otherwise this looks good to me. > >=20 > > Hello Christoph, > >=20 > > Thanks for the feedback. I will make the proposed change and post a sec= ond > > version. >=20 > BTW, what branch was your last patch based off? I had some hunk errors wh= ile > applying it. Hello Scott, That patch was based off kernel v4.11. Did you perhaps use a different kern= el version for your tests? Bart.=