Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:48:51 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count |
| |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:53:09AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Greg, > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:19:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:17:27AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > Hey Greg, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:05:32AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > > Hi Christoph & Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 07:00:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:41:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:48:51PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > > 3.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just curious, how well tested are all the patches on 2.6.32 and 3.1 hat I only > > > > > > > > submitted for 3.0? I'd really prefer if they at least get an xfstest run > > > > > > > > before they get sent out to the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I took these patches on my own as they were reported to fix a public > > > > > > > vulnerability which was assigned a CVE. They applied with no fuzz and > > > > > > > "looked correct" so I applied them on my own. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I shouldn't have, please let me know and I'll drop them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, a nice run of xfstest by someone would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a 3.1 test rig and will get this done today, then I'll go after > > > > > > 2.6.32. > > > > > > > > > > I ran xfstests with 'xfs: validate acl count' and 'xfs: fix acl count > > > > > validation in xfs_acl_from_disk()' applied to 3.1-stable. It came out > > > > > ok. I'll get started on 2.6.32. > > > > > > > > Thanks, how about the 3.0 release? > > > > > > HCH would have given them a spin before he sent them to stable@. > > > > You are right, sorry, for some reason I thought that was for 3.1, too > > many different kernel trees at the moment :( > > My v2.6.32.54 test run came out ok too.
Wonderful, thanks for testing and letting us know.
greg k-h
| |