on 2019/06/18 23:11, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:02:42AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:16:45PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Murphy Zhou<jencce.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Would you mind updating sha1 after it get merged to Linus tree?
That would be helpful for people tracking this issue.
This is the commit id in linux-next and expected to stay the same
when the fix is merged to Linus tree for 5.3.
When I talked to Darrick last week, that was *not* the sense I got
from him. It's not necessarily guaranteed to be stable just yet...
Darrick hasn't gotten any complaints about the copy-file-range-fixes
branch (which has been in for-next for a week now), so he thinks that
commit id (a31713517dac) should be stable from here on out.
(Note that doesn't guarantee that Linus will pull said branch...)
--D
Hi Amir
The kernel fix commit message is right? :-) Because when I backport this patch into 5.2.0-rc6+ kernel,
generic/554(553) also fails, it should be commit a5544984af4 (vfs: add missing checks to copy_file_range).
By the way, a31713517dac ("vfs: introduce generic_file_rw_checks()") doesn't check for immutable and swap file.
I think we can change this message after the fix is merged to Linus tree for 5.3. What do you think about it?
Thanks
Yang Xu
- Ted
