| Message ID | 20240208184913.484340-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce cpu_dcache_is_aliasing() to fix DAX regression | expand |
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:49:02 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > Fix a leak on dax_add_host() error, where "goto out_cleanup_dax" is done > before setting pmem->dax_dev, which therefore issues the two following > calls on NULL pointers: > > out_cleanup_dax: > kill_dax(pmem->dax_dev); > put_dax(pmem->dax_dev); Seems inappropriate that this fix is within this patch series? otoh I assume dax_add_host() has never failed so it doesn't matter much. The series seems useful but is at v4 without much sign of review activity. I think I'll take silence as assent and shall slam it all into -next and see who shouts at me.
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Fix a leak on dax_add_host() error, where "goto out_cleanup_dax" is done > before setting pmem->dax_dev, which therefore issues the two following > calls on NULL pointers: > > out_cleanup_dax: > kill_dax(pmem->dax_dev); > put_dax(pmem->dax_dev); > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
On 2024-02-08 16:21, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:49:02 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > >> Fix a leak on dax_add_host() error, where "goto out_cleanup_dax" is done >> before setting pmem->dax_dev, which therefore issues the two following >> calls on NULL pointers: >> >> out_cleanup_dax: >> kill_dax(pmem->dax_dev); >> put_dax(pmem->dax_dev); > > Seems inappropriate that this fix is within this patch series? > > otoh I assume dax_add_host() has never failed so it doesn't matter much. > > > The series seems useful but is at v4 without much sign of review > activity. I think I'll take silence as assent and shall slam it all > into -next and see who shouts at me. > Thanks Andrew for picking it up! Dan just reacted with feedback that will help reducing the patch series size by removing intermediate commits. I'll implement the requested changes and post a v5 in a few days. So far there are not behavior changes requested in Dan's feedback. Should I keep this patch 01/12 within the series for v5 or should I send it separately ? Thanks, Mathieu
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 17:04:52 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > The series seems useful but is at v4 without much sign of review > > activity. I think I'll take silence as assent and shall slam it all > > into -next and see who shouts at me. > > > > Thanks Andrew for picking it up! Dan just reacted with feedback that > will help reducing the patch series size by removing intermediate > commits. I'll implement the requested changes and post a v5 in a few > days. Yup. I'll leave v4 out there for testers to bet on. > So far there are not behavior changes requested in Dan's feedback. > > Should I keep this patch 01/12 within the series for v5 or should I > send it separately ? Doesn't matter much, but perfectionism does say "standalone patch please".
On 2024-02-08 17:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 17:04:52 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: [...] >> Should I keep this patch 01/12 within the series for v5 or should I >> send it separately ? > > Doesn't matter much, but perfectionism does say "standalone patch please". Will do. I plan to add the following statement to the commit message to make it clear that there is a dependency between the patch series and this fix: [ Based on commit "nvdimm/pmem: Fix leak on dax_add_host() failure". ] Thanks, Mathieu
diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c index 4e8fdcb3f1c8..9fe358090720 100644 --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c @@ -566,12 +566,11 @@ static int pmem_attach_disk(struct device *dev, set_dax_nomc(dax_dev); if (is_nvdimm_sync(nd_region)) set_dax_synchronous(dax_dev); + pmem->dax_dev = dax_dev; rc = dax_add_host(dax_dev, disk); if (rc) goto out_cleanup_dax; dax_write_cache(dax_dev, nvdimm_has_cache(nd_region)); - pmem->dax_dev = dax_dev; - rc = device_add_disk(dev, disk, pmem_attribute_groups); if (rc) goto out_remove_host;
Fix a leak on dax_add_host() error, where "goto out_cleanup_dax" is done before setting pmem->dax_dev, which therefore issues the two following calls on NULL pointers: out_cleanup_dax: kill_dax(pmem->dax_dev); put_dax(pmem->dax_dev); Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org> Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev Cc: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev --- drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)