Re: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 07:11:18PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Jari,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 07:01:31PM +0300, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > When Al Viro's VFS deadlock fix "deal with deadlock in d_walk()" was
> > backported to 3.10.y 3.4.y and 3.2.y stable kernel brances, the deadlock fix
> > was copied to 3 different places. Later, a bug in that code was discovered.
> > Al Viro's fix involved fixing only one part of code in mainline kernel. That
> > fix is called "d_walk() might skip too much".
> > 
> > 3.10.y 3.4.y and 3.2.y stable kernel brances need that later fix copied to 3
> > different places. Greg Kroah-Hartman included Al Viro's "d_walk() might skip
> > too much" fix only once in 3.10.80 kernel, leaving 2 more places without a
> > fix.
> > 
> > The patch below was not written by me. I only applied Al Viro's "d_walk()
> > might skip too much" fix 2 more times to 3.10.80 kernel, and cheched that
> > the fixes went to correct places. With this patch applied, all 3 places that
> > I am aware of 3.10.y stable branch are now fixed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@users.sourceforge.net>
> 
> Next time, please don't forget to mention the mainline commit IDs in
> addition to the message subjects, it helps a lot. The IDs from the
> stable branches are less important since it's generally quite easy
> to find them thanks to the mainline ID which appears in the message.
> Just for reference :
> 
>   - ca5358e ("deal with deadlock in d_walk()")
>   - 2159184 ("d_walk() might skip too much")

I would much rather just include the "real" upstream patches, instead of
an odd backport.

Jari, can you just backport the above referenced patches instead and
provide those backports?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/