[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190430130739.GA11224@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:07:39 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
syzbot <syzbot+10007d66ca02b08f0e60@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
axboe@...nel.dk, dvyukov@...gle.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: INFO: task hung in __get_super
On Tue 30-04-19 04:11:44, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Yeah, you're right. And if we push the patch a bit further to not take
> > loop_ctl_mutex for invalid ioctl number, that would fix the problem. I
> > can send a fix.
>
> Huh? We don't take it until in lo_simple_ioctl(), and that patch doesn't
> get to its call on invalid ioctl numbers. What am I missing here?
Doesn't it? blkdev_ioctl() calls into __blkdev_driver_ioctl() for
unrecognized ioctl numbers. That calls into lo_ioctl() in case of a loop
device. lo_ioctl() calls into lo_simple_ioctl() for ioctl numbers it
doesn't recognize and lo_simple_ioctl() will lock loop_ctl_mutex as you
say.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists