Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.14.y

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

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 09:54:24AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:32:49AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 09:12:22PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > 
> > > The following changes since commit 02a22be3c0003af08df510cba3d79d00c6495b74:
> > > 
> > >   bcachefs: bch2_ioctl_subvolume_destroy() fixes (2025-04-03 16:13:53 -0400)
> > > 
> > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   git://evilpiepirate.org/bcachefs.git tags/bcachefs-for-6.14-2025-05-02
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to 52b17bca7b20663e5df6dbfc24cc2030259b64b6:
> > > 
> > >   bcachefs: Remove incorrect __counted_by annotation (2025-05-02 21:09:51 -0400)
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > bcachefs fixes for 6.15
> > > 
> > > remove incorrect counted_by annotation, fixing FORTIFY_SOURCE crashes
> > > that have been hitting arch users
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Alan Huang (1):
> > >       bcachefs: Remove incorrect __counted_by annotation
> > > 
> > >  fs/bcachefs/xattr_format.h | 8 +++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > You list 1 patch here, but if I pull this, I see 2 patches against the
> > latest linux-6.14.y branch.  When rebased, the "additional" one goes
> > away, as you already sent that to us in the past, so I'll just take the
> > one that's left here, but please, make this more obvious what is
> > happening.
> 
> That's because you're rebasing my patches.

Not really a "rebase", but rather a "cherry-pick", but we've been
through this before, so no need to go over it again :)

> > Also, I see a lot of syzbot fixes going into bcachefs recently,
> > hopefully those are all for issues that only affected the tree after
> > 6.14 was released.
> 
> Until the experimental label comes off I'm only doing critical
> backports - it really doesn't make any sense to do anything else right
> now.

Ok.

> The syzbot stuff has had zero overlap with user reported bugs, and since
> it's fuzzing the on disk image (and we don't support unprivilidged
> mounts - yet, at least) - they haven't been a security concern. There's
> been one security bug since 6.7, and you have that fix.

Great, thanks!

greg k-h