From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:1606 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932227AbeCOW0H (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:26:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:26:05 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: detect agfl count corruption and reset agfl Message-ID: <20180315222605.GK18129@dastard> References: <20180314171724.41951-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20180314181218.GR4865@magnolia> <20180315103839.GA44732@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180315103839.GA44732@bfoster.bfoster> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Dave Chiluk , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 06:38:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:42:50PM -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Darrick J. Wong > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > ... > > > > Reviewed-by Dave Chiluk > > > > I'm also assuming this will get submitted back to the linux-stable > > trees as the agfl packing change is already causing issues in the > > stable trees. If you do not intend to push it into the linux-stable > > trees let me know and I'll take care of at least the major ones. > > > > Yeah, I can cc stable in the next post along with the other minor fixes. > My question is how far back should this fix go? Was the plan to only go > back to v4.5 because that is where the packing fix first went in? Or > should this go back further because it looks like the packing fix was > backported to v3.10: > > $ git show 96f859d52bcb1 > commit 96f859d52bcb1c6ea6f3388d39862bf7143e2f30 > Author: Darrick J. Wong > Date: Mon Jan 4 16:13:21 2016 +1100 > > libxfs: pack the agfl header structure so XFS_AGFL_SIZE is correct > > ... > > cc: # 3.10 - 4.4 > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner 3.10 was when the problem was first introduced. I have no idea whether it got backported that far but the stable kernel maintainers, so you'll have to manually audit all current long-term stable kernels to determine what kernels need backports. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com