Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: always use address space in inode for resv_map pointer

[Andrew Morton]

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.

grr.

> 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