[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <edc1773d7d2e36682f607549a1f69b1bc503f72e.camel@mpiricsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 16:21:13 +0530
From: Shardul Bankar <shardul.b@...ricsoftware.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>, willy@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dev.jain@....com, janak@...ricsoftware.com, shardulsb08@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib: xarray: free unused spare node in
xas_create_range()
On Fri, 2025-12-05 at 08:22 +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> > Link:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=a274d65fc733448ed518ad15481ed575669dd98c
> ...
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@...nel.org>
>
>
> BTW, do we have a way to test this in a test case?
Hi David,
Thanks for the review and the Reviewed-by.
Regarding a test case: I don’t have a focused selftest or fault-
injection setup yet that reliably hits this xas_nomem() +
xas_create_range() corner case.
I noticed this spare-node leak while analyzing the Syzbot report I
referenced in the Link: tag, but the reproducer I see there doesn’t
isolate this path and reports other kmemleaks.
For now I’d prefer to treat this as a small correctness fix in xarray
itself. If I manage to come up with a robust way to exercise this path
in a selftest (e.g. via targeted fault injection in lib/test_xarray.c),
I can follow up with a separate patch, but I don’t have anything solid
to propose today.
>
>
> A follow-up cleanup that avoids labels could be something like
> (untested):
>
>
> diff --git a/lib/xarray.c b/lib/xarray.c
> index 9a8b4916540cf..325f264530fb2 100644
> --- a/lib/xarray.c
> +++ b/lib/xarray.c
> @@ -714,6 +714,7 @@ void xas_create_range(struct xa_state *xas)
> unsigned long index = xas->xa_index;
> unsigned char shift = xas->xa_shift;
> unsigned char sibs = xas->xa_sibs;
> + bool success = false;
>
> xas->xa_index |= ((sibs + 1UL) << shift) - 1;
> if (xas_is_node(xas) && xas->xa_node->shift == xas-
> >xa_shift)
> @@ -724,9 +725,11 @@ void xas_create_range(struct xa_state *xas)
> for (;;) {
> xas_create(xas, true);
> if (xas_error(xas))
> - goto restore;
> - if (xas->xa_index <= (index | XA_CHUNK_MASK))
> - goto success;
> + break
> + if (xas->xa_index <= (index | XA_CHUNK_MASK)) {
> + succeess = true;
> + break;
> + }
> xas->xa_index -= XA_CHUNK_SIZE;
>
> for (;;) {
> @@ -740,15 +743,17 @@ void xas_create_range(struct xa_state *xas)
> }
> }
>
> -restore:
> - xas->xa_shift = shift;
> - xas->xa_sibs = sibs;
> - xas->xa_index = index;
> - return;
> -success:
> - xas->xa_index = index;
> - if (xas->xa_node)
> - xas_set_offset(xas);
> + if (success) {
> + xas->xa_index = index;
> + if (xas->xa_node)
> + xas_set_offset(xas);
> + } else {
> + xas->xa_shift = shift;
> + xas->xa_sibs = sibs;
> + xas->xa_index = index;
> + }
> + /* Free any unused spare node from xas_nomem() */
> + xas_destroy(xas);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xas_create_range);
>
>
Your bool-based version reads nicer; I’m happy to follow up with a
small cleanup patch on top that switches xas_create_range() over to
that style (with a Suggested-by tag).
Thanks and Regards,
Shardul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists