On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:30:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:02:41AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:57:53PM +0200, Thomas D. wrote: > > > The bad commit according to grsec's statement is > > > > > > > From b1438f477934f5a4d5a44df26f3079a7575d5946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:53:42 +1000 > > > > Subject: [PATCH] xfs: xfs_iflush_cluster fails to abort on error > > > > > > Would be nice to get some clarification. > > > > There's nothing wrong with that commit in the upstream kernel, > > it's the backport that has a bug in it because it failed to take > > into account changes outside the context of the upstream commit that > > the older kernels don't have. > > Thanks for letting me know about this. > > As the patch was tagged with 3.10+, I assumed that it was safe to be > merged to those older kernels, otherwise I would never have done so. We > do have ways to mark external things like this for stable patches, it's > a great help when doing backports. Little things like this are very easy to forget about - those error sign changes are ancient history as far as upstream development is concerned. This is why we have regression tests - the zero-day kernel robot can run xfstests - perhaps stable kernels should be submitted to a full round of testing before release to catch subtle "patch applies but ends up wrong" issues like this... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
