Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1279542 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2015-11-30 03:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-11-30 08:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-11-30 12:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2015-11-30 15:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-11-30 16:20 +0100

#1279542 — Re: [PATCH 2.6.32 00/38] 2.6.32.69-longterm review

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 22:47 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> This is the start of the longterm review cycle for the 2.6.32.69 release.
> All patches will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any
> issue with these being applied, please let me know. If anyone is a
> maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants to add a Signed-off-by: line
> to the patch, please respond with it. If anyone thinks some important
> patches are missing and should be added prior to the release, please
> report them quickly with their respective mainline commit IDs.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sat Dec  5 22:47:02 CET 2015.
> Anything received after that time might be too late. If someone
> wants a bit more time for a deeper review, please let me know.
> 
> NOTE: 2.6.32 is approaching end of support. There will probably be one
> or maybe two other versions issued in the next 3 months, and that will
> be all, at least for me. Adding to this the time it can take to validate
> and deploy in some environments, it probably makes sense to start to
> think about switching to another longterm branch. 3.2 and 3.4 are good
> candidates for those seeking rock-solid versions. Longterm branches and
> their projected EOLs are listed here :
> 
>      https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at :
>      https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/longterm-review/patch-2.6.32.69-rc1.gz
> 
> The shortlog and diffstat are appended below.

Patches 9 and 30 didn't hit the lists, but I've bounced the versions I
received.

Patch 2 didn't arrive here or on the list, but appears to be commit
a41cbe86df3a ("Failing to send a CLOSE if file is opened WRONLY and
server reboots on a 4.x mount").

These subjects in the shortlog don't appear in the patch series:

> Filipe Manana (1):
>       Btrfs: fix read corruption of compressed and shared extents
[...]
> Herbert Xu (4):
[...]
>       crypto: api - Only abort operations on fatal signal
[...]
> Jeff Mahoney (1):
>       btrfs: skip waiting on ordered range for special files
[...]
> Michal Kubeček (1):
>       ipv6: fix tunnel error handling
[...]
> Pravin B Shelar (2):
>       skbuff: Fix skb checksum flag on skb pull
>       skbuff: Fix skb checksum partial check.

Commit 397d425dc26d ("vfs: Test for and handle paths that are
unreachable from their mnt_root") is missing.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, reading IRC for the first tim

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1279604

Hi Ben,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:42:13AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Patches 9 and 30 didn't hit the lists, but I've bounced the versions I
> received.
 
Thanks. Strangely, 9 arrived late, I don't know why.

> Patch 2 didn't arrive here or on the list, but appears to be commit
> a41cbe86df3a ("Failing to send a CLOSE if file is opened WRONLY and
> server reboots on a 4.x mount").

Yes that's it, I've resent it now.

> These subjects in the shortlog don't appear in the patch series:
> 
> > Filipe Manana (1):
> >       Btrfs: fix read corruption of compressed and shared extents
> [...]
> > Herbert Xu (4):
> [...]
> >       crypto: api - Only abort operations on fatal signal
> [...]
> > Jeff Mahoney (1):
> >       btrfs: skip waiting on ordered range for special files
> [...]
> > Michal Kube??ek (1):
> >       ipv6: fix tunnel error handling
> [...]
> > Pravin B Shelar (2):
> >       skbuff: Fix skb checksum flag on skb pull
> >       skbuff: Fix skb checksum partial check.
> 

Indeed I removed them during the build attempt, and long before building
the changelog, I'm worried that there's a bug in my script which seems
to take a specific branch to emit the log instead of the current one :-/
Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the confusion.

> Commit 397d425dc26d ("vfs: Test for and handle paths that are
> unreachable from their mnt_root") is missing.

OK I'm seeing it in your 3.2 branch, I'll try to backport it.

Thanks Ben!
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1279775

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:51:48AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Commit 397d425dc26d ("vfs: Test for and handle paths that are
> > unreachable from their mnt_root") is missing.
> 
> OK I'm seeing it in your 3.2 branch, I'll try to backport it.

The code in 2.6.32 looks like a plate of spaghetti, which was heavily
reworked in 2.6.38-rc1 by commit 31e6b01 ("fs: rcu-walk for path lookup").
It even does something suspiciously useless :

		if (this.name[0] == '.') switch (this.len) {
			default:
				break;
			case 2:	
				if (this.name[1] != '.')
					break;
				follow_dotdot(nd);
				inode = nd->path.dentry->d_inode;
				/* fallthrough */
			case 1:
				goto return_reval;
		}

Look how inode is assigned after follow_dotdot() and is never used
between the moment it's assigned and the moment it's re-assigned. I
think I got it right though. I checked that I don't need to pass
via path_put() on exit since follow_dotdot() does it on the error
path. I'd appreciate that you, Eric, or anyone else would review it
though.

Thanks,
Willy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1279950

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 07:51 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
> > Commit 397d425dc26d ("vfs: Test for and handle paths that are
> > unreachable from their mnt_root") is missing.
> 
> OK I'm seeing it in your 3.2 branch, I'll try to backport it.

Eric sent you a backport here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.stable/151074

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, reading IRC for the first time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1279979

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:43:02PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 07:51 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [...]
> > > Commit 397d425dc26d ("vfs: Test for and handle paths that are
> > > unreachable from their mnt_root") is missing.
> > 
> > OK I'm seeing it in your 3.2 branch, I'll try to backport it.
> 
> Eric sent you a backport here:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.stable/151074

Yes and I dropped it since you spotted a bug there, instead I've used
your version which was fixed. I didn't realize by then that only one
of the two patches was replaced by yours. That was a misunderstanding
on my side. Both versions appear to be equivalent (which reassures me)
but I'll use Eric's.

Thanks!
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web