fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
never finish. So, put the request patently.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
index ae813e609932..6fe330cc9709 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
@@ -1768,8 +1768,10 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
req->in.args[1].size = total_len;
err = fuse_request_send_notify_reply(fc, req, outarg->notify_unique);
- if (err)
+ if (err) {
fuse_retrieve_end(fc, req);
+ fuse_put_request(fc, req);
+ }
return err;
}
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
Thanks,
Miklos
> ---
> fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> index ae813e609932..6fe330cc9709 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> @@ -1768,8 +1768,10 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
> req->in.args[1].size = total_len;
>
> err = fuse_request_send_notify_reply(fc, req, outarg->notify_unique);
> - if (err)
> + if (err) {
> fuse_retrieve_end(fc, req);
> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
> + }
>
> return err;
> }
>
On 06.11.2018 12:23, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
>> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
>> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
>> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
>> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
>
> Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
I've found this by code review. I did this last week and I have 10 patches more
on different theme. I was waiting for when the merge window opens.
>
>> ---
>> fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> index ae813e609932..6fe330cc9709 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> @@ -1768,8 +1768,10 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
>> req->in.args[1].size = total_len;
>>
>> err = fuse_request_send_notify_reply(fc, req, outarg->notify_unique);
>> - if (err)
>> + if (err) {
>> fuse_retrieve_end(fc, req);
>> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
>> + }
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>>
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06.11.2018 12:23, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
>>> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
>>> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
>>> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
>>> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
>>
>> Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
>
> I've found this by code review. I did this last week and I have 10 patches more
> on different theme. I was waiting for when the merge window opens.
Well, the merge window just closed. But never worry, bugfixes can go
in at anytime.
If you notice a bug, such as this, you don't need to hold back until
any particular time, the sooner it's known, the better.
Thanks,
Miklos
On 06.11.2018 12:33, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 06.11.2018 12:23, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
>>>> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
>>>> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
>>>> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
>>>> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
>>
>> I've found this by code review. I did this last week and I have 10 patches more
>> on different theme. I was waiting for when the merge window opens.
>
> Well, the merge window just closed. But never worry, bugfixes can go
> in at anytime.
>
> If you notice a bug, such as this, you don't need to hold back until
> any particular time, the sooner it's known, the better.
Ok, no problem :)
Thanks,
Kirill