On 9/27/13 12:48 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 09/27/13 11:44, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/27/13 8:01 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >>> Free the memory pointed to by state before returning on error from >>> xfs_dir2_node_removename.c >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely<tinguely@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Found by Coverity (134681) in userspace, same patch applies there >>> also. >> >> Heh, looks like that one has been around since the dawn of time, thanks. >> >> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> how do we handle the matching userspace fixes, separate patch to >> be explicit? Wait for the next syncup? >> >> Thanks, >> -Eric > > <patch delete> > > Good question. > > The user space should be kept up to date with the kernel. > > Since the patches will be identical except the directory name, I was hoping to submit one copy. But I am not trying to invent a policy, just being lazy. > > --Mark. > Was just an offhanded question; it'd just be good to know what we all expect. I suppose that it could depend on the severity of the flaw; a minor leak before exit() isn't a big deal and could wait for a global sync-up; a data corruption fix might need to be quickly merged to both trees. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
