linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:50:26 +1000
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount

Hi Miklos,
Thanks for your response and apologies for my delayed reply.

> Why the double sign-off?
Some misconfiguration on my side. I will remove the extra line in the
next patch version

> And this is called for both block and non-block supers.  Which means
> that the bdi will be unregistered, yet the sb could still be reused
> (see fuse_test_super()).

Just to confirm my understanding, fuse_test_super needs to have the
same check as the super.c test_* function, correct?
--Daniil