linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: replace fuse_queue_forget with fuse_force

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: <CAJfpegviwk5F+39Vz2D4UjLaGpsFZ-26WeDwetjL=hWV4T6S7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:26:01 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: yangyun <yangyun50@...wei.com>
Cc: josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: replace fuse_queue_forget with
 fuse_force_forget if error

On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 at 12:06, yangyun <yangyun50@...wei.com> wrote:
> Since forget is not necessarily synchronous (In my opinion, the pre-this patch use of
> synchronous 'fuse_force_forget' is an error case and also not necessarily synchronous),
> what about just changing the 'fuse_force_forget' to be asynchronous?

Even less impact would be to move the allocation inside
fuse_force_forget (make it GFP_NOFAIL) and still use the
fuse_queue_forget() function to send the forget as e.g. virtiofs
handles them differently from regular requests.

Thanks,
Miklos