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    [W:0.057 / U:91.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site