From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759789AbXIYIIG (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:08:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754718AbXIYIHu (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:07:50 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:36395 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754923AbXIYIHs (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:07:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:07:28 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kamalesh Babulal Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix messed hunks in generic_setlease Message-Id: <20070925010728.b65e5b27.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <46F8BF79.40405@openvz.org> References: <46F8BF79.40405@openvz.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated > during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx) > patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the > second one is still lost. > > The returned pointer was not the one allocated, but some temporary > used to scan through the inode's locks list. This caused and OOPS > during Kamalesh's testing. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov > > --- > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index c0fe71a..c1198e3 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -1423,7 +1418,7 @@ int generic_setlease(struct file *filp, > locks_copy_lock(new_fl, lease); > locks_insert_lock(before, new_fl); > > - *flp = fl; > + *flp = new_fl; > return 0; > > out: argh, what a mess - there are way too many trees playing with fs/locks.c. umm, I think this is not a mismerge and that the original patch (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/141) had this bug in it. And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus. Do you agree?