lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much
    On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 07:56:19AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 05:52:16PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:41:14AM +0300, Jari Ruusu wrote:
    > > > On 6/19/15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
    > > > > 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?
    > > >
    > > > I won't do that, sorry. It is more complicated than you think. It would
    > > > involve backporting more VFS-re-write-patch-bombs than would be acceptable
    > > > to stable kernel branch. Above mentioned d_walk() function that Al Viro
    > > > modified in mainline don't even exist in 3.10.y and older brances.
    > > >
    > > > My understanding is that complete backport of above mentioned "deal with
    > > > deadlock in d_walk()" and "d_walk() might skip too much" patches to 3.10.y
    > > > branch is to apply all these patches:
    > > >
    > > > (a) backport of "deal with deadlock in d_walk()", by Ben Hutchings
    > > > (b) dcache: Fix locking bugs in backported "deal with deadlock in d_walk()"
    > > > (c) Al Viro's "d_walk() might skip too much" applied THREE times.
    > > >
    > > > Of those, you merged (a) and (b) to 3.10.76 stable, and one copy of (c) to
    > > > 3.10.80 stable.
    > > >
    > > > The problem is that you didn't realize that "deal with deadlock in d_walk()"
    > > > was applied to three different places in Ben Hutchings' backport, and that
    > > > latest Al Viro's fix had to be also applied to three different places.
    > > > Considering the sh*t that you have to deal with, nobody is blaming you for
    > > > that mistake.
    > > >
    > > > I am asking that you apply Al Viro's original "d_walk() might skip too much"
    > > > patch TWO more times to 3.10.y stable branch. On both times, your patch tool
    > > > will find the correct place of source file to modify, but with different
    > > > offsets each time.
    > >
    > > That's insane, and not how my tools work :(
    >
    > No but I think it's just the patch command who found the proper location
    > because the context was identical. That's what happens to me all the time
    > with very old kernels, which is the reason why I must absolutely build
    > them before the preview otherwise I'm sure to deliver something that
    > doesn't even build :-)
    >
    > > Can you provide the needed backport? If it was in an earlier email in
    > > this series, sorry, it's long gone from my mailbox, can you resend it?
    >
    > Yes it was in the thread earlier this month. I'm appending it below. The
    > following commits were referred to :
    > - ca5358e ("deal with deadlock in d_walk()")
    > - 2159184 ("d_walk() might skip too much")

    Ok, that's a mess, thanks for clearing it up for me, I've now included
    this in the 3.10-stable kernel.

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-06-30 03:01    [W:7.238 / U:0.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site