On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:17:24PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > I think your suggestion that non-debug systems could warn instead of
> > > > fail is a good one, but removing the verifier altogether is
> > > > inappropriate.
> > >
> > > Changing every single verifier in a non-trivial way is not something
> > > I'm about to do for a -rc6 kernel. Removing the verifiers from log
> > > recovery just reverts to the pre-3.8 situation, so is perfectly
> > > acceptable short term solution while we do the more invasive verify
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > > Can you make the metadump available? I need to understand this better
> > > > before I can sign off. Also: Any idea how far back this one goes?
> > >
> > > No, I can't make the metadump available to you - it was provided
> > > privately and not obfuscated and so you'd have to ask Dave for it.
> > Dave (Jones), could you make the metadump available to me? I'd like to
> > understand this a little bit better. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the
> > proposition that we should corrupt silently in this case...
> Sorry, I don't have it any more. I'll see if I can recreate the problem
> next week and prepare another dump.
Much appreciated. Thanks!