[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250328190105.GG29527@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:01:05 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+62262fdc0e01d99573fc@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, jlayton@...nel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfs@...ts.linux.dev, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
"Sapkal, Swapnil" <swapnil.sapkal@....com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [netfs?] INFO: task hung in netfs_unbuffered_write_iter
David,
I know that I will regret my email tomorrow, but
On 03/28, David Howells wrote:
>
> #syz test: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git netfs-fixes
>
> There's inconsistency with some wakeups between using rreq->waitq (a private
> waitqueue) and using clear_and_wake_up_bit() (a shared global waitqueue).
Too late for me, I didn't even try to read the "netfs-fixes" changes.
And if I even tried, I probably wouldn't understand them ;)
But, afaics (I can be easily wrong), the curent logic in net/9p/ doesn't look
right regardless of any other fixes, no?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists