[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514024726.GB30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 03:47:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+481ad819c717f6b78df9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: general protection fault in kernfs_kill_sb (2)
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:19:46AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> This is what I reported at
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/ISOJlV2I2QM/qHslGMi3AwAJ .
>
> We are currently waiting for comments from Al Viro.
1) the damn thing is unusable without javashit. Which gets about
the same reaction as sending something.doc in attachment. Please,
find a less obnoxious way to archive the thing (or to generate
URLs that would work without that garbage).
2) deactivate_locked_super() *WILL* be called when fill_super() fails.
Live with it; it allows to simplify a whole lot of cleanup logics
in various filesystems. Again, we are not going for a model where
->kill_sb() is not called for something returned by sget().
Rationale: rarely exercised paths tend to rot, so anything that increases
the duplication of bits and pieces of normal teardown into failure exits
of foo_fill_super() is a bloody bad idea. If anything, we want to take
a lot of stuff out of ->put_super() instances directly into ->kill_sb()
ones, precisely because ->put_super() is only called for fully set up
filesystems.
3) kernfs needs to be fixed. The rest of the dropped commits were
made redundant by 8e04944f0ea8; this one wasn't. Mea culpa.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists