> > This patch is fine for stable, but I have a process question. > > All these patches from overlayfs 5.2-rc1 are also v4.9 stable candidates: > > > > 1. acf3062a7e1c - ovl: relax WARN_ON() for overlapping layers use case > > 2. 98487de318a6 - ovl: check the capability before cred overridden > > 3. d989903058a8 - ovl: do not generate duplicate fsnotify events for "fake" path > > 4. 9e46b840c705 - ovl: support stacked SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA > > > > #2 wasn't properly marked for stable, but the other are marked with > > Fixes: and Reported-by: > > > > Are those marks not sufficient to get selected for stable trees these days? > > Not by default, no. Sometimes they might get picked up if we get bored, > or the auto-bot notices them. > > > I must admit that #1 in borderline stable. Not sure if eliminating an unjust > > WARN_ON qualified, but syzbot did report a bug.. > > syzbot things are good to fix in stable kernels, so that syzbot can > continue to find real things in stable kernels. So yes, that is fine to > backport. > > > Just asking in order to improve the process, but in any case, > > please pick those patches for v4.9+ (unless anyone objects?) > > They all already have LTP/xfstests/syzkaller tests that cover them. > > I'll queue them up for the next round after this, thanks. > Hi Greg, I forgot to follow up on those patches. Now I look at linux-4.19.y, I only see patch #1 (ovl: relax WARN_ON()..) and not the 3 other patches I listed as stable candidates. Was there any issue with those patches? Thanks, Amir.
