Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 29 Nov 2025 14:06:26 +0100 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev_super() failure | | From | Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa <> |
| |
On 11/27/25 6:45 PM, David Hunter wrote: > On 11/25/25 17:14, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >> On 11/22/25 12:01 AM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >>> On Sat, 2025-11-22 at 00:36 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >>>> On 11/21/25 11:28 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-22 at 00:16 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >>>>>> On 11/21/25 11:04 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 2025-11-21 at 23:48 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/21/25 10:15 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2025-11-21 at 20:44 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/25 8:58 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2025-11-19 at 08:38 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> <skipped> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IIUC, hfs_mdb_put() isn't called in the case of hfs_kill_super() in >>>>>>>> christian's patch because fill_super() (for the each specific >>>>>>>> filesystem) is responsible for cleaning up the superblock in case of >>>>>>>> failure and you can reference christian's patch[1] which he >>>>>>>> explained >>>>>>>> the reasoning for here[2].And in the error path the we are trying to >>>>>>>> fix, fill_super() isn't even called yet. So such pointers >>>>>>>> shouldn't be >>>>>>>> pointing to anything allocated yet hence only freeing the pointer >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> sb_info here is sufficient I think. >>>>> >>>>> I was confused that your code with hfs_mdb_put() is still in this >>>>> email. So, >>>>> yes, hfs_fill_super()/hfsplus_fill_super() try to free the memory in >>>>> the case of >>>>> failure. It means that if something wasn't been freed, then it will >>>>> be issue in >>>>> these methods. Then, I don't see what should else need to be added >>>>> here. Some >>>>> file systems do sb->s_fs_info = NULL. But absence of this statement >>>>> is not >>>>> critical, from my point of view. >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the input. I will be sending the same mentionned patch after >>>> doing testing for it and also after finishing my testing for the hfs >>>> patch too. >>>>> >>> >>> I am guessing... Should we consider to introduce some xfstest, self- >>> test, or >>> unit-test to detect this issue in all Linux's file systems family? >>> >> Yes, It isn't that hard either IIUC you just need to fail the >> bdev_file_open_by_dev() function somehow to trigger this error path.. >>> Thanks, >>> Slava. >> >> So I wanted to update you on my testing for the hfs patch and the >> hfsplus patch. For the testing I used both my desktop pc and my laptop >> pc running the same configuraitons and the same linux distribution to >> have more accurate testing. There are three variants that I used for >> testing : A stable kernel, 6.18-rc7 kernel with no patch, 6.18-rc7 >> kernel with hfs or hfsplus patch. >> >> Firstly, I couldn't run the hfs tests due to mkfs.hfs being unavailable >> in my search for it. they all point to mkfs.hfsplus and you pointed out >> that mkfs.hfsplus can create hfs filesystems with the -h flag but in my >> case it doesn't. I pointed out last time that I found a tool to create >> HFS filesystems which it does (it's called hformat) but the xfstests >> require the availability of mkfs.hfs and fsck.hfs for them to run. More >> help on this is needed for me to run hfs tests. I also tested ext4 as >> you have suggested as a base to compare to. Here is my summary of testing: >> >> For Stable kernel 6.17.8: >> >> On desktop: >> ext4 tests ran successfully. >> hfsplus tests crash the pc around generic 631 test. >> >> On Laptop: >> ext4 and hfsplus tests ran successfully. >> >> For 6.18-rc7 kernel: >> >> On desktop: >> ext4 tests ran successfully same results as the stable kernel. >> hfsplus crashes on testing startup.For launching any test. >> >> On Laptop: >> ext4 tests ran successfully same results as the stable kernel. >> hfsplus crashes on testing startup.For launcing any test. >> >> >> For the patched 6.18-rc7 kernel. >> >> Same results for both desktop and laptop pcs as in the 6.18-rc7 kernel. >> >> >> Should be noted that I have tried many different setups regarding the >> devices and their creation for the 6.18-rc7 kernel and none of them >> worked.Still I can't deduce what is causing the issue.If they work for >> you, my only assumption is that some dependency of xfstests is not met >> on my part even though I made sure that I do cover them all especially >> with repeatedly failed testing... >> >> What could be the issue here on my end if you have any idea? >> >> Also should I send you the hfsplus patch in one of my earlier replies[1] >> for you to test too and maybe add it to hfsplus? >> >> Best Regards, >> Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa >> >> [1]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/3ad2e91e-2c7f-488b- >> a119-51d62a6e95b8@gmail.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Hey everyone, > > I am helping Shuah with the Linux Kernel Mentorship Program. I wanted to > report that many mentees have also had problems with xfstests recently. > > I am tracking what happens here, so I can help future developers, but I > just wanted to let everyone know that others are also having issues with > xfstests. > > Also, Mehdi, by any chance have you used any of the configuration > targets like "localmodconfig". I am wondering if something in your > configuration file is missing. > No I have not,Thanks for the suggestion.I have been messing with a lot of syzbot configurations but IIRC I always have made sure to make mrproper and copy my in use .config file before building for my pc.I still want to reproduce the same crash as I did before on my part now to see what caused the problem anyway but my assumption for the time being is that localmodconfig would fix it.
I will keep you updated on the matter too David.Thanks
> Thanks, > David Hunter Best Regards, Mehdi Ben Hadj khelifa
|  |