[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171123154404.GD21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:44:04 +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 in
sget_userns
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:35:29AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> The problem is that calling unregister_shrinker() without successful
> register_shrinker() causes crash due to s_shrink.list.{prev,next} == NULL.
*shrug*
shrinker->nr_deferred = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!shrinker->nr_deferred) {
/* make sure it's in consistent state */
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&shrinker->list);
return -ENOMEM;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists