[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230731-deswegen-chatten-4ff6c45563ad@brauner>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:57:50 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+69c477e882e44ce41ad9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
chao@...nel.org, huyue2@...lpad.com, jack@...e.cz,
jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com, linkinjeon@...nel.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sj1557.seo@...sung.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, xiang@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [erofs?] [fat?] WARNING in erofs_kill_sb
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 03:53:25PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 03:22:28PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Uh, no. I vasty underestimated how sensitive that change would be. Plus
> > arguably ->kill_sb() really should be callable once the sb is visible.
> >
> > Are you looking into this or do you want me to, Christoph?
>
> I'm planning to look into it, but I won't get to it before tomorrow.
Ok, let me go through the callsites and make sure that all callers are
safe. I think we should just continue calling deactivate_locked_super()
exactly the way we do right now but remove shenanigans like the one we
have in erofs_kill_sb().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists