lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count
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@.

-Ben


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-13 20:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans