[PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation
felixb at sgi.com
Tue Apr 21 10:47:30 CDT 2009
On Apr 19, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
>>>> From: Olaf Weber <olaf at sgi.com>
>>>> There had been reports where xfs filesystem was randomly
>>>> corrupted with fsfuzzer, and xfs failed to handle it
>>>> gracefully. This patch fixes couple of reported problem
>>>> by providing additional checks in the superblock
>>>> validation routine.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb at sgi.com>
>>> Since this patch is from Olaf, shouldn't he have a s-o-b line as
>> I was following the guidelines from the SubmittingPatches:
>> The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
>> and has the form:
>> From: Original Author <author at example.com>
>> The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
>> patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing,
>> then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
>> the patch author in the changelog.
>> So, is "From:" enough here, or "Signed-off-by" is needed as well?
> The From line determines author-ship. If this is Olaf's patch, then
> the From
> is right. My understanding is that s-o-b is intended as a "I didn't do
> anything stupid (e.g., incorporate licensed code, etc.) while
> working on
> this patch/handling this patch."
That what I did before creating (from the proposed changes)
and submitting the patch (and making sure the author get the
> This makes me believe that the author
> should include a s-o-b line as well.
> So, for example, whenever _I_ send a patch that I authored, I have
> both a
>> From and a s-o-b.
That seems redundant based on the following excerpt from the
If the "from" line is missing,
then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
the patch author in the changelog.
>> If someone picks it up (e.g., akpm), he'd add his s-o-b,
> so when he resends it, it'd have my from, my s-o-b, and his s-o-b.
> As far as
> I know, other kernel folks do the same.
That's definitely not usual case for submitting the patch on
somebody else behalf, but I found the following entry in the log:
Author: Ashwin Ganti <ashwin.ganti at gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 24 19:48:44 2009 -0800
Staging: add p9auth driver
This is a driver that adds Plan 9 style capability device
From: Ashwin Ganti <ashwin.ganti at gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at suse.de>
But at the end, I don't mind to follow any established
guidelines here. Just need clarifications.
More information about the xfs