[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181218130958.88ac9d638c717a1ab1db9dc3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:09:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
syzbot <syzbot+5399ed0832693e29f392@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
DmitryVyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/inode.c:LINE!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:34:57 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> > See
> > https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/autofs-fix-possible-inode-leak-in-autofs_fill_super.patch
> >
> > I think this will fix it, I'll forward it to Andrew if you agree:
>
> Actually, looking at it again the above patch is plain not needed,
> dropping it and updating the patch which follows it in the series
> is what needs to be done.
>
> Andrew, what should I do to make this easiest for you to handle,
> a respost with v2 in the subject of the patch affected by dropping
> the above patch?
I dropped the patch and fixed up the fallout.
The patch wasn't true anyway. "There is no check at all for a failure
to allocate the root inode in autofs_fill_super(), handle it." In fact,
d_make_root(NULL) will just return NULL and autofs_fill_super() handles
that appropriately.
However let's note that when autofs_get_inode() or d_make_root() fail,
autofs_fill_super() will return -EINVAL. Should have been -ENOMEM, I
guess?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists