linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] ext4: avoid buffer_head leak in ext4_mark_inode

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: <a5ddf25d-3bd3-4323-8649-c75b65070d01@web.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:56:45 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] ext4: avoid buffer_head leak in ext4_mark_inode_used

>>>> Release inode_bitmap_bh from ext4_read_inode_bitmap in
>>>> ext4_mark_inode_used to avoid buffer_head leak.
>>>> By the way, remove unneeded goto for invalid ino when inode_bitmap_bh
>>>> is NULL.
>>>
>>> 1. I suggest to split such changes into separate update steps.
>>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.11-rc3#n81
>> It's acceptable to me, but I'm not sure if it worth separate patches
>> to others. I will do separate in next version if no person is against
>> this.
>
> No, that suggestion is stupid.

Please reconsider such a view a bit more.

>                                 There's no reason to generate even more
> patches for a three line fix, it's very obvious that you're fixing a
> missing resource release and rearranging the first error out
> accordingly.

You would probably like to distinguish the severity for two changes,
wouldn't you?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.11-rc3#n168

Under which circumstances can you accept the separation of development concerns better?

Regards,
Markus