(cc stable)
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:28:21 -0500 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 08:22:33PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I suggest that what we do is to revert both those changes. We can
> > worry about the possibly-unneeded spin_lock later, in a separate patch.
> >
> > It should have been a separate patch anyway. It's conceptually
> > unrelated and is not a bugfix, but it was mixed in with a bugfix.
> >
> > Mingming, this needs urgent consideration, please. Note that I had to
> > make additional changes to ext4 due to the subsequent introduction of
> > the dirty_blocks counter.
>
> I've looked the two patches which you've queued in the -mm branch, and
> they look correct to me.
>
> The bugs fixed by these patches can potentially lead to filesystem
> corruption, since we ultimately use these fields to set the superblock
> values. This in my mind makes them stable candidates at the very
> least, and if we weren't so late in the 2.6.28 cycle, I'd be strongly
> tempted to push them to Linus as a bugfix before the merge window.
>
> Andrew, any strong objections for me to grab them for the ext4 tree?
> Or would you rather carry them? I would prefer that they get pushed
> to Linus as soon as the merge window opens, which is one reason why
> I'd prefer carry them, but we can do this either way.
>
I'm planning on sending them off to Linus for 2.6.28 this week,
assuming nobody can think of a plausible reason to not do that.
Now I didn't look _very_ closely at the chronology, but I think that
revert-percpu-counter-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch reverts
a post-2.6.27 change, and is not needed in stable.
revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
however reverts a pre-2.6.27 change, and should be merged into 2.6.27.
This patch reverts the addition and use of
percpu_counter_sum_and_set(), which is racy and can corrupt the
counters.
However
revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
won't apply to 2.6.27 because the dirty_blocks stuff was added and
generates rejects.
So if all the above is correct, I'd propose that if and when
revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
hits mainline, we should ask the -stable guys to directly revert
commit e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e
Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Jul 11 19:27:31 2008 -0400
percpu_counter: new function percpu_counter_sum_and_set
which should be all that 2.6.27.x needs.
Agree? If so, can you please take care of getting that patch over to
stable@xxxxxxxxxx? (I added the cc:stable to the diff, so there's
probably nothing which you need to do..)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
