xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?
From: Sean Thomas Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:56:05 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120309164533.GA7762@xxxxxxx>
References: <20120308140600.77406b8zzy2zggkc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120308235326.GQ5091@dastard> <20120309110838.147865q6j5c9hqsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120309164533.GA7762@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.5)
Hi Ben,

Thank you for the confirmation! We'll move ahead with 3.0.23, then

Best,

-Sean

Quoting Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>:

Sean,

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:08:38AM -0500, Sean Thomas Caron wrote:
OK, Linux 3.2.9 doesn't sound very safe to use in production. So, fine,
we can try 3.0.23; it appears that a fix for CVE-2012-0056 was applied
around 3.0.19 so it should be all set in that regard.

I'm comparing the contents of the xfs-bulletproof-sync patch with the
3.0.23 XFS sources and it's not entirely clear to me if 3.0.23 fully
implements the fixes in the patch. Please forgive me because it's a
little long, but here's the contents of the patch:

Looks like this fix made 3.0.16:

# git describe 6826d3e80d143ca7411fd2dca05bc57c7ed3e620
v3.0.15-68-g6826d3e

-Ben





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>