From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755137Ab1I2SyK (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:10 -0400 Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]:54180 "EHLO mx4-phx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752292Ab1I2SyI (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:51:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Ledford To: Greg KH Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jiri Slaby , Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110929175716.GA5815@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.11.231.143] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.1.2_GA_3268 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/7.1.2_GA_3268) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > Um, that's the way this patch is upstream, right? So perhaps it > should > be fixed there first and then I can take the fix into -stable? Upstream is a bit of a fuzzy statement ;-) It might be in -next, but it's not in Linus' tree or Andrew's -mm tree or else my recent patches would have conflicted. And in fact, upon further reflection, I think maybe that particular test could use being split into two distinct tests. One for wrapping the byte counter, which would return -ENOMEM, and one for exceeding RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE which would return -EPERM (not sure if that's right, I would have to poke around elsewhere, but it seems a better response when you are violating a ulimit than nomem to me anyway). -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford