Re: + revert-ipc-dont-allocate-a-copy-larger-than-max.patch added to -mm tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:44:12 -0400 Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 12:43 -0700, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > The patch titled
> >      Subject: revert "ipc: don't allocate a copy larger than max"
> > has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
> >      revert-ipc-dont-allocate-a-copy-larger-than-max.patch
> > 
> > Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
> >    a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
> >    b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
> >    c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
> >       reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
> > 
> > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
> > 
> > The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
> > there every 3-4 working days
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: revert "ipc: don't allocate a copy larger than max"
> > 
> > Revert 88b9e456b164.  Dave has confirmed that this was causing oopses
> > during trinity testing.
> 
> No, he didn't.

hm, so perhaps he didn't run the test for long enough?

> Here's a copy of Dave Jones's original report [1] on this very same bug
> in linux-next on Feb 19, __6 days before__ I even submitted the series
> that fixes this bug.
> 
> Note that the faulting instruction is __identical__ to Dave's most
> recent report on 3.9-rc4:

Well bah.  Why wasn't I told this (sufficiently clearly for it to sink in)?

> My recommendation is to either:
> 1) apply my entire 'ipc MSG_COPY fixes' series
> --or--
> 2) revert the entire ipc MSG_COPY implementation that introduced this
> bug to begin with.

urgh.  I really don't want to merge a pile of patches, one of which we
think fixes a bug which we don't understand for reasons we don't
understand.

Not only does this generally suck, but it also creates a nightmare for
maintainers of 3.8.x kernels - what patch should they merge to fix that
bug?

I'm about to disappear for 1.5 weeks.  Stanislav, someone, please let's
get this sorted out!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]