From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EFC7CA0 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 01:40:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2A0AC002 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DrgHLIm54Dz3XHWG for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:40:22 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Something badly broken with the latest XFS changeset in all stable kernels? Message-ID: <20160615064022.GD26977@dastard> References: <75808782-835f-4bc9-5243-b25cab00d6f3@whissi.de> <20160615000241.GC26977@dastard> <20160615013056.GA23074@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160615013056.GA23074@kroah.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Greg KH Cc: "Thomas D." , spender@grsecurity.net, stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:30:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:02:41AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:57:53PM +0200, Thomas D. wrote: > > > The bad commit according to grsec's statement is > > > > > > > From b1438f477934f5a4d5a44df26f3079a7575d5946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:53:42 +1000 > > > > Subject: [PATCH] xfs: xfs_iflush_cluster fails to abort on error > > > > > > Would be nice to get some clarification. > > > > There's nothing wrong with that commit in the upstream kernel, > > it's the backport that has a bug in it because it failed to take > > into account changes outside the context of the upstream commit that > > the older kernels don't have. > > Thanks for letting me know about this. > > As the patch was tagged with 3.10+, I assumed that it was safe to be > merged to those older kernels, otherwise I would never have done so. We > do have ways to mark external things like this for stable patches, it's > a great help when doing backports. Little things like this are very easy to forget about - those error sign changes are ancient history as far as upstream development is concerned. This is why we have regression tests - the zero-day kernel robot can run xfstests - perhaps stable kernels should be submitted to a full round of testing before release to catch subtle "patch applies but ends up wrong" issues like this... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs