On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 15:59 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 2023, at 8:09 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 12:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 16.06.23 22:54, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 16:27 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > Thanks Eirik and Jeff. > > > > > > > > > > At this point in the release cycle, I plan to apply this for the > > > > > next merge window (6.5). > > > > > > > > I think we should take this in sooner. This is a regression and a > > > > user-triggerable oops in the right situation. If: > > > > > > > > - non-x86_64 arch > > > > - /proc/fs/nfsd is mounted in the namespace > > > > - nfsd is not started in the namespace > > > > - unprivileged user calls "cat /proc/fs/nfsd/reply_cache_stats" > > > > > > FWIW, might be worth to simply tell Linus about it and let him decide, > > > that's totally fine and even documented in the old and the new docs for > > > handling regressions[1]. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst?id=eed892da9cd08be76a8f467c600ef58716dbb4d2 > > > > > > > I'd rather Chuck make the final call here. > > Thanks! I feel this one needs broader testing than we can manage > in just a couple of days. If this were earlier in the -rc cycle > I would pull the patch right into 6.4-rc without hesitation. It > is obviously -rc material, but the timing is unfortunate. > > I'm planning the nfsd for-6.5 pull request early in the merge > window, so practically speaking it shouldn't delay the finalized > upstream version of this patch by more than a few days. > > Ok. I'll trust your judgment then and just cultivate my patience! Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
