From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032586Ab2CSTLh (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:11:37 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:38256 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755142Ab2CSTLg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:11:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120319155022.GC8176@kroah.com> References: <20120316233829.GA14022@kroah.com> <20120316233811.484341257@linuxfoundation.org> <20120317023740.GH12704@decadent.org.uk> <1331969567.3022.233.camel@deadeye> <20120319155022.GC8176@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:11:35 +0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _Fxe5Mt1Uhh1G_yDqqwvsS7-sko Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock From: Pavel Shilovsky To: Greg KH Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jeff Layton , Steve French Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 19 марта 2012 г. 19:50 пользователь Greg KH написал: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: >> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings написал: >> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: >> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings написал: >> >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> >> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know. >> > [...] >> >> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we >> >> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of >> >> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error >> >> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is >> >> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap. >> > >> > This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a >> > patch to apply on top of it. >> > >> >> I posted two patches: >> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not >> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock > > What do you mean by "fixed version"? > >> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in >> cifs_push_posix_locks > > What do you mean by this? Ok, seems I didn't understand this process correctly. I reposted the new "fixed" version of this patch, because I thought it is more suitable for stale to merge one correct patch rather than one incorrect + follow-on fixup. Sorry if I was wrong. > > If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I > need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with > what is in Linus's tree right now. > > So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of > that patch is please. Steve has just merged the follow-on patch: http://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a but seems hasn't sent a merge request to Linus yet - will let you know when the patch comes to Linus's tree. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky.