[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#990398: marked as done (unblock: zfs-linux/2.0.3-9 (pre-approval))

Your message dated Thu, 01 Jul 2021 20:56:09 +0000
with message-id <E1lz3jF-0003yu-Ds@respighi.debian.org>
and subject line unblock zfs-linux
has caused the Debian Bug report #990398,
regarding unblock: zfs-linux/2.0.3-9 (pre-approval)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
990398: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990398
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package zfs-linux

[ Reason ]

We want to cherry-pick a three-line fix for an important bug.
See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989373

diff --git a/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c
b/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c
index 421aebefe46..524c43dcded 100644
--- a/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c
+++ b/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c
@@ -342,9 +342,6 @@ zpl_iter_write(struct kiocb *kiocb, struct iov_iter
*from)
 	ssize_t wrote = count - uio.uio_resid;
 	kiocb->ki_pos += wrote;
 
-	if (wrote > 0)
-		iov_iter_advance(from, wrote);
-
 	return (wrote);
 }
 

[ Impact ]

Potential memory corruption / data loss.

[ Risks ]

This has been sufficiently tested by ZFS upstream. And
this fix is a part of their new stable release:
https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/412b69dfabe223a69159c8579ba808b49f0982e0


unblock zfs-linux/2.0.3-9
Thank you for using reportbug

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Unblocked.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: