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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJfpegt4Jnr3GyP4Y9TrHU_kfxBqEfQrrs0SPQx7s1k+kwd8fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:08:46 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 02:50, Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Or make calling retire_super() conditional on sb->s_bdev != NULL.

Please only enable this for non-bdev fuse (which is the vast majority
of cases) if it's justified.  Otherwise it will just be a source of
bugs.

Thanks,
Miklos