Messages in this thread | | | From | Amir Goldstein <> | Date | Thu, 16 Aug 2018 19:29:13 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/16] vfs: don't evict uninitialized inode |
| |
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:41 AM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > >> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> > >> > >> iput() ends up calling ->evict() on new inode, which is not yet initialized > >> by owning fs. So use destroy_inode() instead. > >> > >> Add to sb->s_inodes list only if inode is not in I_CREATING state (meaning > >> that it wasn't allocated with new_inode(), which already does the > >> insertion). > >> > >> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > >> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> > >> Fixes: 80ea09a002bf ("vfs: factor out inode_insert5()") > > > > Backport hint: this patch depends on the patch ("new primitive: > > discard_new_inode()") currently commit 22dc9a168272 in Al's for-next. > > > > Still trying to figure out the best format to channel this information to > > stable maintainers... > > Why are we talking about stable? This regression was introduced in > 4.18-rc1, spotted by Al *and* reported by testers. It needs to be > fixed in one way or other in 4.18. >
Miklos,
Seeing that it wasn't fixed in 4.18..
> I've nothing against applying "new primitive: discard_new_inode() now > + this patch, but if it is deemed too risky at this point, we could > just revert the buggy commit 80ea09a002bf ("vfs: factor out > inode_insert5()") and its dependencies. >
Should we propose for stable the upstream commits: e950564b97fd vfs: don't evict uninitialized inode c2b6d621c4ff new primitive: discard_new_inode()
Or should we go with the independent v1 patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10511969/
Thanks, Amir.
| |