On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 19:09 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:08 PM J . Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:28:49PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Looks good to me. Aside from the minor nit above: > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I have one file locking patch queued up for v5.3 so far, but nothing for > > > > v5.2. Miklos or Bruce, if either of you have anything to send to Linus > > > > for v5.2 would you mind taking this one too? > > > > > > > > > > Well. I did send a fix patch to Miklos for a bug introduced in v5.2-rc4, > > > so... > > > > I could take it. I've modified it as below. > > > > I'm very happy with the patch, but not so much with the idea of 5.2 and > > stable. > > > > It seems like a subtle change with some possibility of unintended side > > effects. (E.g. I don't think this is true any more, but my memory is > > that for a long time the only thing stopping nfsd from giving out > > (probably broken) write delegations was an extra reference that it held > > during processing.) And if the overlayfs bug's been there since 4.19, > > then waiting a little longer seems OK? > > > > Getting back to this now that the patch is on its way to Linus. > Bruce, I was fine with waiting to 5.3 and I also removed CC: stable, > but did you mean that patch is not appropriate for stable or just that > we'd better wait a bit and let it soak in master before forwarding it to stable? > With NFS and SMB, oplocks/leases/delegations are optimizations and you're never guaranteed to get one in the face of competing access. stable-kernel-rules.rst says: - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical. I'm not sure this clears that bar. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
