linux-kernel - Re: [resend PATCH v2 0/2] virtiofs submounts that are still in use forgotten by shrinker

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: <20231003164823.GA1995@templeofstupid.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 09:48:23 -0700
From:   Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
To:     Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
Cc:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        German Maglione <gmaglione@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Max Reitz <mreitz@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH v2 0/2] virtiofs submounts that are still in use
 forgotten by shrinker

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:18:42AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/2/23 17:24, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I recently ran into a situation where a virtiofs client began
> > encountering EBADF after the client / guest system had an OOM.  After
> > reproducing the issue and debugging, the problem is caused by a
> > virtiofsd submount having the nodeid of its root dentry fogotten.  This
> > occurs because it borrows the reference for this dentry from the parent
> > that is passed into the function.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't forget you, just didn't manage to review the 2nd version
> yet. Will definitely do this week.

Thanks; I appreciate the feedback you've provided so far.

> Please also note that there will be merge conflicts with atomic open patches
> from Dharmendra/me. Although probably not too difficult to resolve.

Sure. I'm happy to reparent, resolve those conflicts, re-test, and send
another revision when we're ready.  I suspect there are going to be
additional changes requested on the v2.  With that in mind, I'll hold
off for the moment unless it is going to cause headaches for you.

For the atomic-open-revalidate changes: should I be working from what's
on the list?  This is the most recent patchset I see:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230920173445.3943581-1-bschubert@ddn.com/

I found a 6.5 relative tree of yours on GitHub by following the libfuse
pull request, but nothing that seemed in sync with fuse/for-next.

Thanks,

-K