From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q29GjRe1257012 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:45:27 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:45:33 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9? Message-ID: <20120309164533.GA7762@sgi.com> References: <20120308140600.77406b8zzy2zggkc@web.mail.umich.edu> <20120308235326.GQ5091@dastard> <20120309110838.147865q6j5c9hqsc@web.mail.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120309110838.147865q6j5c9hqsc@web.mail.umich.edu> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Sean Thomas Caron Cc: hch@lst.de, xfs@oss.sgi.com Sean, On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:08:38AM -0500, Sean Thomas Caron wrote: > OK, Linux 3.2.9 doesn't sound very safe to use in production. So, fine, > we can try 3.0.23; it appears that a fix for CVE-2012-0056 was applied > around 3.0.19 so it should be all set in that regard. > > I'm comparing the contents of the xfs-bulletproof-sync patch with the > 3.0.23 XFS sources and it's not entirely clear to me if 3.0.23 fully > implements the fixes in the patch. Please forgive me because it's a > little long, but here's the contents of the patch: Looks like this fix made 3.0.16: # git describe 6826d3e80d143ca7411fd2dca05bc57c7ed3e620 v3.0.15-68-g6826d3e -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs