From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D97931FF164 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:50:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 992B11A2F2; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:51:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <899a6484-e2ef-4b22-af31-e38ac47605f9@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:51:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20241002143624.1260363-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <19884790-b3a7-44d5-a54d-dc9d659dc0e5@proxmox.com> <75a61c76-b223-4ee5-92db-792981840bb2@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <75a61c76-b223-4ee5-92db-792981840bb2@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.028 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [[PATCH kernel]] fix 5683: netfs: reset subreq iov iter before tail clean X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 10/23/24 10:28, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 22/10/2024 um 17:46 schrieb Christian Ebner: >> I refrained from doing so as I saw that typically fixes to mainline are >> back-ported to stable, but since this is already fixed in the latest >> version, I was hoping for upstream guidance on how to proceed >> (unfortunately without reply). > > Hmm, true, this makes it a bit more complicated. > If you submit it then to stable and the maintainers should definitively should > add the context for why a 1:1 cherry-pick is not an option, like it being rather > huge and the fixing the misalignment as side effect of correcting the tracking > of subreq->transferred where sensible before calling into the new > netfs_read_subreq_terminated helper that replaced the netfs_subreq_terminated > one you're adapting here, at least FWICT. Yeah, I will definitely include more detailed reasoning and the context on why this applies to stable only. Unfortunately I do not have my reproducer cluster with me this week, so I would do this first thing on Monday next week. I do wanted to double check and test with current stable, also hopefully gaining some more insides with your and Fiona's feedback. > So FWIW, while I also would prefer some comment from upstream, I'm also fine > with applying this now, as it seems reasonable workaround and letting the kernel > through to the test repo to allow those affected to test it would also to get us > some more QA out of this patch before moving it to more stable repos. That would be great, at least to see if this really also fixes the issues customers see with the fixed index files being corrupted on their CephFS located datastores, e.g. [0]. Since I never reproduced that exact issue (I only reproduced the corrupt checksum after file upload [1]), confirmation that this is fixed would be a big plus. [0] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/149249/ [1] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/151291/ _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel