Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated
>> during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx)
>> patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the
>> second one is still lost.
>>
>> The returned pointer was not the one allocated, but some temporary
>> used to scan through the inode's locks list. This caused and OOPS
>> during Kamalesh's testing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index c0fe71a..c1198e3 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -1423,7 +1418,7 @@ int generic_setlease(struct file *filp,
>> locks_copy_lock(new_fl, lease);
>> locks_insert_lock(before, new_fl);
>>
>> - *flp = fl;
>> + *flp = new_fl;
>> return 0;
>>
>> out:
>
> argh, what a mess - there are way too many trees playing with fs/locks.c.
>
> umm, I think this is not a mismerge and that the original patch
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/141) had this bug in it.
Indeed... :(
> And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus. Do you agree?
Shame on me... Sorry :(
(going to the blackboard to write "I will check my patches twice before
sending them to Andrew" for 100 times)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
