Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752707Ab0FGS7M (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:59:12 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:54970 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752472Ab0FGS7K (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:59:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Al Viro , David Woodhouse cc: Dave Airlie , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [git pull] drm fixes In-Reply-To: <20100607182640.GL31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <20100607182640.GL31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2071 Lines: 48 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Al Viro wrote: > > Ho-hum... Speaking of which, what about leak fixes? There's a long-standing > in-core inode leak in jffs2; basically, if you fail directory modification > in symlink() et.al., you get a leaked inode and whinge at umount. Found > after -rc1, had been there since all the way back (similar bug in creat() > had been fixed in 2003, mkdir()/mknod()/symlink() were not). Fix sits in > jffs2-fixes now... I think a leak that is trivial easily falls under "security issue" as a potential DoS issue. On the other hand, if it's not trivially fixed (say it needs big re-organizing of some locking or refcounting or whatever), and it's a really slow leak of a pretty small data structure, and is not triggered by normal users (say, you need to mount a filesystem or it needs some very specific timing), I think it falls under "we haven't seen in the previous five years, we might as well make sure the fix is tested in the next merge window". So I think it's a judgement call. > I can simply pull jffs2-fixes into vfs for-next (I need it in there for > ->evict_inode() series), but I'd obviously prefer to just rebase it after > it gets into mainline. I seem to have a jffs2 pull request that I haven't yet processed, exactly because it wasn't clear. It's much bigger than I would have wished for, and it's not clear it's all regressions at all. DavidW? It's 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-) and while that's in the size range that I didn't just reject it like the drm pull, I still do want to know if that's really just true major bugfixes and regressions. We already had a really bad -rc2 release due to a tiny and innocent-looking bugfix that turned out to be anything but. I do _not_ want to repeat that with -rc3, since I'll be gone. Linus -- 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/