Bug#802885: [3.16] xfs: allow inode allocations in post-growfs disk space

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:42:26AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:27:39AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Per the FAQ at > > , > > I think the following commit should be

Bug#797023: Linux kernel FTBFS error for ARCH=s390, CONFIG_SMP=n, and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG=y

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 06:47:01PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:06:49 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 21:33 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > >> > >> The Linux kernel in jessie fails to build from source for > >> the combination ARCH=s390,

Bug#782515: [PATCH stable 3.10-3.16] tcp: Fix crash in TCP Fast Open

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 07:00:32PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Commit 355a901e6cf1 (tcp: make connect() mem charging friendly) changed tcp_send_syn_data() to perform an open-coded copy of the 'syn' skb rather than using skb_copy_expand(). The open-coded copy does not cover the

Bug#769576: linux: Btrfs goes forced readonly when qgroup already exists

Hi Sebastiann, On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 12:01:06AM +, Andy Whitcroft wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:05:24PM +0100, Sebastiaan L. Zoutendijk wrote: Control: submitter -1 ! Hello Joe, On Sat 3 Jan 2015 at 16:02:12 -0500, Joseph Salisbury wrote: Would it be possible for you to

Re: [CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 06:13:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Luis, On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:21:01PM +, Luis Henriques wrote: Your backport of commit 6f442be2fb22 (x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS) seems to be identical to mine, but I'm unable to confirm

Re: [Precise][CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 09:43:33PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: I think you want these too: af726f21ed8a x86_64, traps: Fix the espfix64 #DF fixup and rewrite it in C b645af2d5905 x86_64, traps: Rework bad_iret I'm attaching backports to 3.2. Thanks Ben. Initially Andy asked to wait 1

[CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

Following this email I am sending for review the CVE-2014-9090 fix backports for both Lucid (2.6.32) and Precise (3.2.0). I'm also CC'ing Debian mailing-lists, Moritz, Ben and Willy as these backports could be of interest both to Debian and to the 2.6.32 and 3.2 stable kernels. Andy Lutomirski

[Lucid][CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

/1398795 Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h | 11 +-- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c | 1 - arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 13

[Precise][CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

/1398795 Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h | 11 +-- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c | 1 - arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 13

[CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

[ Re-sending as I missed some people on the CC list. Sorry! ] Following this email I am sending for review the CVE-2014-9090 fix backports for both Lucid (2.6.32) and Precise (3.2.0). I'm also CC'ing Debian mailing-lists, Moritz, Ben and Willy as these backports could be of interest both to

[Precise][CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

/1398795 Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h | 11 +-- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c | 1 - arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 13

[Lucid][CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

/1398795 Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h | 11 +-- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c | 1 - arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 13

Re: [CVE-2014-9090] x86_64, traps: Stop using IST for #SS

Hi Willy, On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:57:26PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Luis, On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:51:45PM +, Luis Henriques wrote: [ Re-sending as I missed some people on the CC list. Sorry! ] Following this email I am sending for review the CVE-2014-9090 fix

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 3.16.y.z extended stable support

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 06:17:01PM +, Luis Henriques wrote: The Ubuntu kernel team is pleased to announce that we will be providing extended stable support for the Linux 3.16 kernel until April 2016 as a third party effort maintained on our infrastructure. The team will pick up stable

[ANNOUNCE] Linux 3.16.y.z extended stable support

The Ubuntu kernel team is pleased to announce that we will be providing extended stable support for the Linux 3.16 kernel until April 2016 as a third party effort maintained on our infrastructure. The team will pick up stable maintenance where Greg KH left off with v3.16.7 [1]. Thank you, Greg.

Re: Kernel version for jessie

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:39:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) [...] Note, that period is based on it being

Bug#751417: linux-image-3.2.0-4-5kc-malta: no SIGKILL after prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, 1, ...) on MIPS

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:21:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 20:36 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Control: tag -1 security upstream patch moreinfo Control: severity -1 grave Control: found -1 3.14.5-1 Aurelien Jarno pointed out this appears to be fixed upstream in

Bug#648155: [stable] SUNRPC handle EKEYEXPIRED in call_refreshresult

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:16:48AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 21:20 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:36:12PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote: Seems that maybe they reverted to the old behavior after all:

Bug#714295: [PATCH libata/for-3.11-fixes] libata: make it clear that sata_inic162x is experimental

Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes: Hello, Greg. I think the following commit should go into -stable but forgot to cc stable. It's now in Linus' tree. Can you please include it in -stable? Thanks! On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:13:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: From

Bug#709647: [PATCH 14/98] genirq: Fix can_request_irq() for IRQs without an action

...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- kernel/irq/manage.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c index b4c6385..a561ed3 100644 --- a/kernel

Bug#709647: [ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Patch genirq: Fix can_request_irq() for IRQs without an action has been added to staging queue

...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- kernel/irq/manage.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c index e49a288..a9302d0

Bug#700333: [ 3.5.y.z extended stable ] Patch clockevents: Set dummy handler on CPU_DEAD shutdown has been added to staging queue

context ] Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c | 4 kernel/time/tick-common.c| 1 + 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c index a13987a..239a323 100644 --- a/kernel

Bug#700333: [PATCH 102/118] clockevents: Set dummy handler on CPU_DEAD shutdown

] Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques luis.henriq...@canonical.com --- kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c | 4 kernel/time/tick-common.c| 1 + 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c index a13987a..239a323 100644 --- a/kernel/time/tick

Bug#704933: [stable] fbcon: fix locking harder

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:26:07AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 02:24 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 03:28 +0400, Stepan Golosunov wrote: [...] The relevant changes in 3.2.40 ( fb: rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover, fb: Yet

Bug#684441: [PATCH v2] [media] rc: ite-cir: Initialise ite_dev::rdev earlier

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:32:27AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: ite_dev::rdev is currently initialised in ite_probe() after rc_register_device() returns. If a newly registered device is opened quickly enough, we may enable interrupts and try to use ite_dev::rdev before it has been initialised.

Bug#684441: [PATCH v2] [media] rc: ite-cir: Initialise ite_dev::rdev earlier

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:09:55AM -0700, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 12:44 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:32:27AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: ite_dev::rdev is currently initialised in ite_probe() after rc_register_device() returns. If a newly

Re: Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

-r 3.0.0-rc7 :-) Cheers, -- Luis Henriques -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwmbaj9c@gmail.com

Re: Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes: On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 11:25 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: Hi, (why do you keep replying only to the sender?) Lars Segerlund lars.segerl...@gmail.com writes: [...] I think CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARy is a good choise for the default, since

Re: Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

is 2.6.33.9-rt31, so there is no support for latter kernels. Cheers, -- Luis Henriques -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ipr9t3nj@gmail.com

Re: Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

and CONFIG_IRQ_FORCED_THREADING by default. Not sure about the rational behind picking CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY instead of CONFIG_PREEMPT, but I would say that it could make sense to at least evaluate the possibility to change this. Cheers, -- Luis Henriques -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel

Re: r8169 update for Debian 6.0 'squeeze'

(Connection refused) Anyway, I am currently running wheezy, but since my laptop is using this driver, I believe it shouldn't hurt to give it a try. Any suggestions on what sort of tests I could run? Or just reporting it's working for me is enough? Cheers, -- Luis Henriques -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email