[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250824191906.GH39973@ZenIV>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 20:19:06 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: ssranevjti@...il.com
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz,
syzbot+0cee785b798102696a4b@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Shaurya Rane <ssrane_b23@...vjti.ac.in>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/namei: fix WARNING in do_mknodat due to invalid inode
unlock
On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 08:07:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 12:23:03AM +0530, ssranevjti@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Shaurya Rane <ssrane_b23@...vjti.ac.in>
> >
> > The done_path_create() function unconditionally calls inode_unlock() on
> > path->dentry->d_inode without verifying that the path and inode are valid.
> > Under certain error conditions or race scenarios, this can lead to attempting
> > to unlock an inode that was never locked or has been corrupted, resulting in
> > a WARNING from the rwsem debugging code.
> >
> > Add defensive checks to ensure both path->dentry and path->dentry->d_inode
> > are valid before attempting to unlock. This prevents the rwsem warning while
> > maintaining existing behavior for normal cases.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+0cee785b798102696a4b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>
> No. You are papering over some bugs you have not even bothered to describe -
> "certain error conditions or race scenarios" is as useless as it gets.
>
> Don't do that. Fixing a bug found by syzbot is useful; papering over
> it does no good whatsoever.
>
> NAK.
Incidentally, syzbot report in question seems to be the one at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/689edffb.050a0220.e29e5.000d.GAE@google.com/
"[syzbot] [gfs2?] WARNING in do_mknodat (3)"
I won't have time to look at it in details until tomorrow, though.
Again, the patch upthread is no-go. Whatever is going on with that
reporducer, this is not a fix.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists