linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs: handle shrinker registration failure insget

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171123152819.GC21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:28:19 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     mhocko@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: handle shrinker registration failure insget_userns

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:04:23AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Hopefully less screwed version.  But as I've said I am not really
> > > familiar with the code and do not feel competent to change it so please
> > > be very careful here. I've moved the shrinker registration to
> > > alloc_super which turned out to be simpler.
> > 
> > I don't get it.  Why the hell do we need all that PITA in the first place?
> > Just make sget_userns() end with
> > 	if (unlikely(regsiter_shrinker(&s->s_shrink) != 0)) {
> > 		deactivate_locked_super(s);
> > 		s = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > 	}
> > 	return s;
> > and be done with that.  All there is to it...
> > 
> 
> Doesn't deactivate_locked_super() call unregister_shrinker() ?

And?  unregister_shrinker() will do list_del() on empty list_head
and kfree(NULL); where's the problem with that?