On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 09:54:24AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:32:49AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 09:12:22PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > > > The following changes since commit > > > 02a22be3c0003af08df510cba3d79d00c6495b74: > > > > > > bcachefs: bch2_ioctl_subvolume_destroy() fixes (2025-04-03 16:13:53 > > > -0400) > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > git://evilpiepirate.org/bcachefs.git tags/bcachefs-for-6.14-2025-05-02 > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 52b17bca7b20663e5df6dbfc24cc2030259b64b6: > > > > > > bcachefs: Remove incorrect __counted_by annotation (2025-05-02 21:09:51 > > > -0400) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > bcachefs fixes for 6.15 > > > > > > remove incorrect counted_by annotation, fixing FORTIFY_SOURCE crashes > > > that have been hitting arch users > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Alan Huang (1): > > > bcachefs: Remove incorrect __counted_by annotation > > > > > > fs/bcachefs/xattr_format.h | 8 +++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > You list 1 patch here, but if I pull this, I see 2 patches against the > > latest linux-6.14.y branch. When rebased, the "additional" one goes > > away, as you already sent that to us in the past, so I'll just take the > > one that's left here, but please, make this more obvious what is > > happening. > > That's because you're rebasing my patches.
Not really a "rebase", but rather a "cherry-pick", but we've been through this before, so no need to go over it again :) > > Also, I see a lot of syzbot fixes going into bcachefs recently, > > hopefully those are all for issues that only affected the tree after > > 6.14 was released. > > Until the experimental label comes off I'm only doing critical > backports - it really doesn't make any sense to do anything else right > now. Ok. > The syzbot stuff has had zero overlap with user reported bugs, and since > it's fuzzing the on disk image (and we don't support unprivilidged > mounts - yet, at least) - they haven't been a security concern. There's > been one security bug since 6.7, and you have that fix. Great, thanks! greg k-h
