Re: [BUG] regression from 974c5e6139db "xfs: flag as supporting FOP_DONTCACHE" (double free on page?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 01:32:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But yeah, maybe the drop-behind case never triggers in practice, and I
> should just revert commit 974c5e6139db ("xfs: flag as supporting
> FOP_DONTCACHE") for now.
> 
> That's kind of sad too, but at least that's new to 6.15 and we
> wouldn't have a kernel release that triggers this issue.
> 
> I realize that Vlastimil had a suggested possible fix, but doing
> _that_ kind of surgery at this point in the release isn't an option,
> I'm afraid. And delaying 6.15 for this also seems a bit excessive - if
> it turns out to be easy to fix, we can always just backport the fix
> and undo the revert.
> 
> Sounds like a plan?
> 
> I'm somewhat surprised that this was only noticed now if it triggers
> so easily for Al with xfstests on xfs. But better late than never, I
> guess..

I wonder if we shouldn't do ...

+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -3725,6 +3725,8 @@ static inline int kiocb_set_rw_flags(struct kiocb *ki, rwf_t flags,
                        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
        }
        if (flags & RWF_DONTCACHE) {
+               /* Houston, we have a problem */
+               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
                /* file system must support it */
                if (!(ki->ki_filp->f_op->fop_flags & FOP_DONTCACHE))
                        return -EOPNOTSUPP;

in case some other filesystem adds support for it?  I don't see anything
in -next right now, but I see Darrick playing with it here for FUSE:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/174787195629.1483178.7917092102987513364.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/
Jeff playing with it for nfsd here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/370dd4ae06d44f852342b7ee2b969fc544bd1213.camel@xxxxxxxxxx/
Trond implementing it for NFS client here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1745381692.git.trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I thought I saw someone implement it for ext4, but perhaps I'm confused
with something else.  Anyway, some kind of not-xfs-specific patch is
appropriate here, I think?

Oh, and we're only just seeing it, I think, because you need to recompile
xfstests to test this functionality ... and I certainly don't re-pull
and re-compile xfstests on a regular basis; I just use the one I pulled
and compiled, um, months ago.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux