On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:32:55AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 00:15 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:44:24PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 21:18 +0200, Martin Svec wrote: > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > > > > > Dne 22.9.2015 v 8:20 Nicholas A. Bellinger napsal(a): > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 17:26 +0200, Martin Svec wrote: > > > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this detailed bug report. > > > > > > > > > > This is < v4.2 RCU se_node_acl->device_list[] NULL pointer dereference > > > > > regression that is effecting v4.1.y specific code. > > > > > > > > > > Here's a compile tested patch to add NULL ->device_list[] sanity checks > > > > > in UNIT_ATTENTION and PR non holder path code, which AFAICT should get > > > > > EXTENDED_COPY I/O functioning on v4.1.y. > > > > > > > > > > Please verify. > > > > > > > > Verified, VAAI XCOPY migration succeeds now. Tested with v4.1.6 plus both XCOPY patches from this > > > > thread. Thank you for the patch. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > Thanks for verifying these two regression bug-fixes on your ESX VAAI > > > host setup. > > > > > > As the first EXTENDED_COPY regression bugfix in commit 4416f89b has not > > > merged into v4.2.y code yet, this second patch will need to be going out > > > to linux-stable over the next days as a for-4.1.y specific bug-fix > > > patch. > > > > > > Adding greg-kh (CC'ed) for a heads up on that bit. > > > > <formletter> > > > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the > > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > > for how to do this properly. > > > > </formletter> > > Yes. > > To clarify, this second EXTENDED_COPY regression bug-fix that Martin has > reported + tested does _not_ effect any >= v4.2-rc1 RCU post conversion > target code. > > It's a pre RCU conversion regression bug-fix, and is only specific to > v4.1.y code. > > It needs to be posted for review + included as a separate patch for > v4.1.y stable specific code. And by emailing me directly about this, you are guaranteeing I will not remember what is going on whenever you eventually send me a patch and I will strongly question it. Come on, send stable stuff to the stable mailing list. And send it in the correct format. You know how to do this type of thing, it's not new to you. A "I'm going to send you something in some random time in the future" does no one any good, as I will forget all about this past email. Remember, I receive on an average about 1300 emails a day, not including high-volume mailing lists (lkml, netdev, etc.) that I have to "process" in some form or another. I have the short term memory of a squirrel, and if you try to send me a stable patch directly, I'll just invoke my form letter like I did above and delete the email to move on to something from someone who did it properly. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
