Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:41:44PM +0530, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 10:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:41:44PM +0530, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 10:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

Hi Greg, Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: > What ever happened with this? Did the patch end up in Linus's tree? If > so, what was the git commit id? It did, commit is d171356ff11ab1825e456dfb979755e01b3c54a1 Cheers, -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

Hi Greg, Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: > What ever happened with this? Did the patch end up in Linus's tree? If > so, what was the git commit id? It did, commit is d171356ff11ab1825e456dfb979755e01b3c54a1 Cheers, -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 10:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu,

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 10:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu,

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > We've received reports from users of

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:01:45AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > We've received reports from users of

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > > > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > > > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing > > commit > > from 4.8 which was

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Sachin Prabhu wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing > > commit > > from 4.8 which was

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing > commit > from 4.8 which was applied to 4.4 stable: > >  a6b5058 fs/cifs: make share unaccessible at

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing > commit > from 4.8 which was applied to 4.4 stable: > >  a6b5058 fs/cifs: make share unaccessible at

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:09:18AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing commit > from 4.8 which was applied to 4.4 stable: > > a6b5058 fs/cifs: make share unaccessible

Re: cifs mount regression in 4.8 and 4.4 stable

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:09:18AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > We've received reports from users of a cifs mount regression in our > 4.4-based kernel, e.g. [1]. It is fixed by reverting the follwing commit > from 4.8 which was applied to 4.4 stable: > > a6b5058 fs/cifs: make share unaccessible