On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Al Viro wrote: > > Ho-hum... Speaking of which, what about leak fixes? There's a long-standing > in-core inode leak in jffs2; basically, if you fail directory modification > in symlink() et.al., you get a leaked inode and whinge at umount. Found > after -rc1, had been there since all the way back (similar bug in creat() > had been fixed in 2003, mkdir()/mknod()/symlink() were not). Fix sits in > jffs2-fixes now... I think a leak that is trivial easily falls under "security issue" as a potential DoS issue. On the other hand, if it's not trivially fixed (say it needs big re-organizing of some locking or refcounting or whatever), and it's a really slow leak of a pretty small data structure, and is not triggered by normal users (say, you need to mount a filesystem or it needs some very specific timing), I think it falls under "we haven't seen in the previous five years, we might as well make sure the fix is tested in the next merge window". So I think it's a judgement call. > I can simply pull jffs2-fixes into vfs for-next (I need it in there for > ->evict_inode() series), but I'd obviously prefer to just rebase it after > it gets into mainline. I seem to have a jffs2 pull request that I haven't yet processed, exactly because it wasn't clear. It's much bigger than I would have wished for, and it's not clear it's all regressions at all. DavidW? It's 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-) and while that's in the size range that I didn't just reject it like the drm pull, I still do want to know if that's really just true major bugfixes and regressions. We already had a really bad -rc2 release due to a tiny and innocent-looking bugfix that turned out to be anything but. I do _not_ want to repeat that with -rc3, since I'll be gone. Linus _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
