lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock
    On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:24:16PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:11:35PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
    > > 19 марта 2012 г. 19:50 пользователь Greg KH
    > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> написал:
    > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
    > > >> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> написал:
    > > >> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
    > > >> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> написал:
    > > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > >> >> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
    > > >> > [...]
    > > >> >> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we
    > > >> >> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of
    > > >> >> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error
    > > >> >> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is
    > > >> >> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed.
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a
    > > >> > patch to apply on top of it.
    > > >> >
    > > >>
    > > >> I posted two patches:
    > > >> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not
    > > >> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock
    > > >
    > > > What do you mean by "fixed version"?
    > > >
    > > >> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in
    > > >> cifs_push_posix_locks
    > > >
    > > > What do you mean by this?
    > >
    > > Ok, seems I didn't understand this process correctly. I reposted the
    > > new "fixed" version of this patch, because I thought it is more
    > > suitable for stale to merge one correct patch rather than one
    > > incorrect + follow-on fixup. Sorry if I was wrong.
    >
    > I need to stay identical with Linus's tree as much as possible, it's
    > easier for everyone in the end that way for tracking exactly what
    > happens.
    >
    > > > If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I
    > > > need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with
    > > > what is in Linus's tree right now.
    > > >
    > > > So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of
    > > > that patch is please.
    > >
    > > Steve has just merged the follow-on patch:
    > > http://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a
    > >
    > > but seems hasn't sent a merge request to Linus yet - will let you know
    > > when the patch comes to Linus's tree.
    >
    > Ok, please let me know when this goes into Linus's tree and I will
    > queue it up for the next releases.

    It's there now, I've picked it up.

    greg k-h
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-23 18:55    [W:4.108 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site