Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: always use address space in inode for resv_map pointer
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu May 09 2019 - 19:13:14 EST
On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:16:09 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think it is better to add fixes label, like:
> > Fixes: 58b6e5e8f1ad ("hugetlbfs: fix memory leak for resv_map")
> > Since the commit 58b6e5e8f1a has been merged to stable, this patch also be needed.
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg298740.html
> It must have been the AI that decided 58b6e5e8f1a needed to go to stable.
> Even though this technically does not fix 58b6e5e8f1a, I'm OK with adding
> the Fixes: to force this to go to the same stable trees.
Why are we bothering with any of this, given that
: Luckily, private_data is NULL for address spaces in all such cases
: today but, there is no guarantee this will continue.
Even though 58b6e5e8f1ad was inappropriately backported, the above
still holds, so what problem does a backport of "hugetlbfs: always use
address space in inode for resv_map pointer" actually solve?
And yes, some review of this would be nice