On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 11:34:34AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 17:15 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 10:29:37AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 08:07:15PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 09:00:59PM +0000, > > > > pr-tracker-bot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > The pull request you sent on Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:13:18 +0100: > > > > > > > > > > > git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs > > > > > > tags/vfs-6.15-rc1.mount > > > > > > > > > > has been merged into torvalds/linux.git: > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/fd101da676362aaa051b4f5d8a941bd308603041 > > > > > > > > I didn't bisect, but this PR looks like the most relevant > > > > candidate. > > > > The latest Linus's master generates the following slab-use-after- > > > > free: > > > > > > Sorry, did just see this today. I'll take a look now. > > > > So in light of "Liberation Day" and the bug that caused this splat > > it's > > time to quote Max Liebermann: > > > > "Ich kann nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." > > > --- a/fs/namespace.c > > +++ b/fs/namespace.c > > @@ -2478,7 +2478,8 @@ struct vfsmount *clone_private_mount(const > > struct path *path) > > struct mount *old_mnt = real_mount(path->mnt); > > struct mount *new_mnt; > > > > - scoped_guard(rwsem_read, &namespace_sem) > > + guard(rwsem_read, &namespace_sem); > > + > > if (IS_MNT_UNBINDABLE(old_mnt)) > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > Well that's a barfworthy oopsie, yes. However, it does strike me as an > easy one to make for a lot of these cleanup.h things since we have a > lot of scoped and unscoped variants. We should, at least, get > checkpatch to issue a warning about indentation expectations as it does > for our other scoped statements like for, while, if etc. > I think this is too easy of a mistake to make to try to detect in checkpatch. I would argue it would be best if a language wizard came up with a way to *demand* explicit use of { } and fail compilation if not present. This would also provide a nice side effect of explicitly delineating what's protected. There are some legitimate { }-less users already, it should not pose difficulty to patch them. I can do the churn, provided someone fixes the problem.
