In 3.6.6 some of the patches of the series "Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4"
by Dmitry Monakhov have been applied but not all. In particular, patch
9, "fix ext4_ext_remove_space tree traversal" is not there. We're
getting hit by the null pointer dereference in our main file servers.
What's the situation of this patch? Any reason it's not applied?
Carlos Carvalho ([email protected]) wrote on 6 November 2012 10:04:
>In 3.6.6 some of the patches of the series "Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4"
>by Dmitry Monakhov have been applied but not all. In particular, patch
>9, "fix ext4_ext_remove_space tree traversal" is not there. We're
>getting hit by the null pointer dereference in our main file servers.
>
>What's the situation of this patch? Any reason it's not applied?
More precisely, we're getting hit in 3.5.2. I'm asking if 3.6.6 has an
equivalent patch. Here's a link: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/183649/
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:04:49 -0200, Carlos Carvalho <[email protected]> wrote:
> In 3.6.6 some of the patches of the series "Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4"
> by Dmitry Monakhov have been applied but not all. In particular, patch
> 9, "fix ext4_ext_remove_space tree traversal" is not there. We're
> getting hit by the null pointer dereference in our main file servers.
>
> What's the situation of this patch? Any reason it's not applied?
This bug was already fixed at this moment
See main bug report https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47611
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:04:49AM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> In 3.6.6 some of the patches of the series "Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4"
> by Dmitry Monakhov have been applied but not all. In particular, patch
> 9, "fix ext4_ext_remove_space tree traversal" is not there. We're
> getting hit by the null pointer dereference in our main file servers.
>
> What's the situation of this patch? Any reason it's not applied?
Patches which which change a large amount of code don't get the
cc:[email protected] label applied to them, primarily because of
the risk involved and the likelihood that those patches won't easily
get backported to the older stable kernels.
Keep in mind that the way things work is that patches that are tagged
for the stable kernel tree automatically get cherry-picked, and if the
cherry-pick fails, the patch is dropped. For a complex patch series,
sometimes dropping a patch in the middle of the patch series can lead
to really bad results --- and while I do extensive regression testing
on the mainline kernel before I send a PULL request to Linus, I just
don't have the time or energy to do this with the (many) stable
kernels series.
Enterprise distro's have paid people who do this thankless job, and it
can be quite painful at times to support an old stable kernel,
especially when users are using it in production and they will scream
bloody murder if you introduce a regression. So they generally solve
the problem by not sticking with a very old patch, and not giving
users access to the latest and greatest features --- such as
the punch hole feature.
The problem is that users want the latest and greatest features, right
away, but they also want something is absolutely stable and
bug-free(tm). Unfortunately, sometimes both wants can not be
accomodated...
- Ted
Theodore Ts'o ([email protected]) wrote on 6 November 2012 08:17:
>On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:04:49AM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>> In 3.6.6 some of the patches of the series "Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4"
>> by Dmitry Monakhov have been applied but not all. In particular, patch
>> 9, "fix ext4_ext_remove_space tree traversal" is not there. We're
>> getting hit by the null pointer dereference in our main file servers.
>>
>> What's the situation of this patch? Any reason it's not applied?
>
>Patches which which change a large amount of code don't get the
>cc:[email protected] label applied to them, primarily because of
>the risk involved and the likelihood that those patches won't easily
>get backported to the older stable kernels.
Sure. I asked because we're having serious problems with a released
version (3.5.2), so an available fix should have already been applied
somewhere and I didn't recognize it. Dmitry sent the link that shows
this is the case. Now we'll go to 3.6.6.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:48:19AM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Sure. I asked because we're having serious problems with a released
> version (3.5.2), so an available fix should have already been applied
> somewhere and I didn't recognize it. Dmitry sent the link that shows
> this is the case. Now we'll go to 3.6.6.
3.5.2 is not a long-term stable release, so the last 3.5.x kernel was
3.5.7 released on 2012-10-12. See http://www.kernel.org and note the
'EOL' next to the version.
Regards,
- Ted