linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] fs: touch up symlink clean up in lookup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <92a32c99-d996-480f-8641-d8dca1a077c1@meta.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 12:11:24 -0500
From: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, brauner@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc: jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] fs: touch up symlink clean up in lookup

On 12/17/25 6:23 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Provide links_cleanup_rcu() and links_cleanup_ref() for rcu- and ref-
> walks respectively.
> 
> The somewhat misleading drop_links() gets renamed to links_issue_delayed_calls(),
> which spells out what it is actually doing.
> 
> There are no changes in behavior, this however should be less
> error-prone going forward.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/namei.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> v2:
> - remove the mindless copy-paste in links_cleanup_ref, instead only move
>   path_puts on the symlinks
> 
> this performs path_put on nd->path later, which should not be a material
> difference.
> 
> this assumes the LOOKUP_CACHED fixup is applied:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20251217104854.GU1712166@ZenIV/T/#mff14d1dd88729f40fa94ada8beaa64e0c41097ff 
> 
> technically the 2 patches could be combined, but I did not want to do it
> given the bug
> 
> Chris, can you feed this thing into the magic llm? Better yet, is it
> something I can use myself? I passed the known buggy patch to gcc
> -fanalyze and clang --analyze and neither managed to point out any
> issues.
> 

Looks like you and Al are still discussing the specifics, but I ran this
version through the review prompts and it didn't find any problems.

With claude or gemini subscriptions, you can run them locally:

https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts

(Other AI providers may work too, but those are the only two I've heard
about so far)

-chris