linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/ceph/file: fix memory leaks in __ceph_sync

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: <CAO8a2Sio-30s=x-By8QuxA7xoMQekPVrQbGHZ92qgresCDM+HA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 14:17:10 +0200
From: Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com>
To: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
Cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, xiubli@...hat.com, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/ceph/file: fix memory leaks in __ceph_sync_read()

The full fix is now in the testing branch.

Max, please follow the mailing list, I posted the patch last week on
the initial thread regarding this issue. Please, comment on the
correct thread, having two threads regarding the same issue introduces
unnecessary confusion.

The fix resolves the following tracker.

https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/67524

Additionally, these issues are no longer recreated after the fix.
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/68981
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/68980

I will make a couple runs with KASAN and its peers, as it's not
immediately clear why these two issues are affected.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:02 PM Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:31 PM Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com> wrote:
> > This is a bad patch, I don't appreciate partial fixes that introduce
> > unnecessary complications to the code, and it conflicts with the
> > complete fix in the other thread.
>
> Alex, and I don't appreciate the unnecessary complications you
> introduce to the Ceph contribution process!
>
> The mistake you made in your first review ("will end badly") is not a
> big deal; happens to everybody - but you still don't admit the mistake
> and you ghosted me for a week. But then saying you don't appreciate
> the work of somebody who found a bug and posted a simple fix is not
> good communication. You can say you prefer a different patch and
> explain the technical reasons; but saying you don't appreciate it is
> quite condescending.
>
> Now back to the technical facts:
>
> - What exactly about my patch is "bad"?
> - Do you believe my patch is not strictly an improvement?
> - Why do you believe my fix is only "partial"?
> - What unnecessary complications are introduced by my two-line patch
> in your opinion?
> - What "other thread"? I can't find anything on LKML and ceph-devel.
>
> Max
>