[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240406035451.GW538574@ZenIV>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:54:51 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+9a5b0ced8b1bfb238b56@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
tj@...nel.org, valesini@...dex-team.ru,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_fop_llseek
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:51:35AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:33:40PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > I don't follow what you are saying.
> > Which code is in non-starter violation?
> > kernfs for calling lookup_bdev() with internal of->mutex held?
>
> That is a huge problem, and has been causing endless annoying lockdep
> chains in the block layer for us. If we have some way to kill this
> the whole block layer would benefit.
Specifically of->mutex or having pathwalk done from some ->write_iter()?
Incidentally, losetup happily accepts sysfs files as backing store.
I don't think it adds problems we don't have otherwise, but IMO
that's really bogus...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists