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: <18552fc7-184c-4bc7-9154-c885fae06d31@fastmail.fm>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 00:54:49 +0200
From:   Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
To:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Cc:     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 10/3/23 18:48, Krister Johansen wrote:
> 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.

I certainly also didn't mean that you should check for merge conflicts, 
it was more an annotation that it might come up - depending on the merge 
order. Please don't stop to do improvements, resolving merge conflicts 
shouldn't be difficult.
I'm going to add you to the atomic open patch series to keep you 
updated, if you don't mind.


> 
> 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.

I don't think there are conflicts with fuse-next right now, but I can 
check.


Thanks,
Bernd