linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] ubifs: Add missing iput if do

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <66c6cee0-75df-3305-7ad2-a5a3da006321@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 17:03:20 +0800
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
CC:     <richard@....at>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] ubifs: Add missing iput if do_tmpfile() failed
 in rename whiteout

在 2021/11/15 16:24, Sascha Hauer 写道:
Hi, Sascha
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:17:50PM +0800, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
>> whiteout inode should be put when do_tmpfile() failed if inode has been
>> initialized. Otherwise we will get following warning during umount:
>>    UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1494): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS
>>    assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth == 0, in fs/ubifs/super.c:1930
>>    VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ubifs. Self-destruct in 5 seconds.
>>
>> Fixes: 9e0a1fff8db56ea ("ubifs: Implement RENAME_WHITEOUT")
>> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/ubifs/dir.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
>> index 2735ad1affed..6503e6857f6e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c
>> +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
>> @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static int do_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>   
>>   		err = do_tmpfile(old_dir, old_dentry, S_IFCHR | WHITEOUT_MODE, &whiteout);
>>   		if (err) {
>> +			if (whiteout)
>> +				iput(whiteout);
> Should this rather be done in do_tmpfile() directly?
Yes, I should have done it. Although next patch reconstructs do_rename() 
which makes this ugly judgement disappered. I will fix it along with 
other suggestions from other patches in next iteration. Thanks.
> Sascha
>