On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:54 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:06:26 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 14:58:58 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > At namespace creation time there is the potential for the "expected to
> > > > be zero" fields of a 'pfn' info-block to be filled with indeterminate
> > > > data. While the kernel buffer is zeroed on allocation it is immediately
> > > > overwritten by nd_pfn_validate() filling it with the current contents of
> > > > the on-media info-block location. For fields like, 'flags' and the
> > > > 'padding' it potentially means that future implementations can not rely
> > > > on those fields being zero.
> > > >
> > > > In preparation to stop using the 'start_pad' and 'end_trunc' fields for
> > > > section alignment, arrange for fields that are not explicitly
> > > > initialized to be guaranteed zero. Bump the minor version to indicate it
> > > > is safe to assume the 'padding' and 'flags' are zero. Otherwise, this
> > > > corruption is expected to benign since all other critical fields are
> > > > explicitly initialized.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 32ab0a3f5170 ("libnvdimm, pmem: 'struct page' for pmem")
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The cc:stable in [11/12] seems odd. Is this independent of the other
> > > patches? If so, shouldn't it be a standalone thing which can be
> > > prioritized?
> > >
> >
> > The cc: stable is about spreading this new policy to as many kernels
> > as possible not fixing an issue in those kernels. It's not until patch
> > 12 "libnvdimm/pfn: Stop padding pmem namespaces to section alignment"
> > as all previous kernel do initialize all fields.
> >
> > I'd be ok to drop that cc: stable, my concern is distros that somehow
> > pickup and backport patch 12 and miss patch 11.
>
> Could you please propose a changelog paragraph which explains all this
> to those who will be considering this patch for backports?
>
Will do. I'll resend the series with this and the fixups proposed by Oscar.
