[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh7nZNf81QPcgpDh-0jzt2sOF3rdUEB0UcZvYFHDiMNkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:46:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] proc fixes v2 for v5.8-rc1
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:34 PM Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
What happened to that first version of the email? I never got it..
> Looking at the code the fsnotify watch should have been removed by
> fsnotify_sb_delete in generic_shutdown_super.
Hmm. Correct. The new_inode_pseudo() is for things that don't have
quotas, fsnotify or writeback.
That was used somewhat intentionally on /proc, though. /proc certainly
doesn't have quotas or writeback.
And fsnotify on /proc seems a bit questionably too. Do people actually
_do_ this and depend on it, or is this just about syzbot doing
something odd and thus showing the problem?
Anyway, I have pulled your fix, because I think it's reasonable and
safe, but I do wonder if we should have kept the new_inode_pseudo(),
and instead just make fsnotify say "you can't notify on an inode that
isn't on the superblock list". Hmm?
Is fsnotify on /proc really sensible? Do we actually generate any
useful notifications?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists