Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:52:24 +0400 | Subject | Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock | From | Pavel Shilovsky <> |
| |
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 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in cifs_push_posix_locks
-- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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/
| |