From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759082AbXIYIew (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:34:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755506AbXIYIep (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:34:45 -0400 Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:50554 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754330AbXIYIeo (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:34:44 -0400 Message-ID: <46F8C740.6040003@openvz.org> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:30:56 +0400 From: Pavel Emelyanov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kamalesh Babulal Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix messed hunks in generic_setlease References: <46F8BF79.40405@openvz.org> <20070925010728.b65e5b27.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070925010728.b65e5b27.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sacred.ru [62.205.161.221]); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:33:22 +0400 (MSD) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. Indeed... :( > And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus. Do you agree? Shame on me... Sorry :( (going to the blackboard to write "I will check my patches twice before sending them to Andrew" for 100 times)