Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <[email protected]>
---
* Changes since v1:
As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
ceph_real_mount().
(Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
(not) do with this patch.)
fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/super.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
@@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
out:
mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
+ ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
return ERR_PTR(err);
}
base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
On 08/11/2022 22:34, Luís Henriques wrote:
> Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
> mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
> with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
> an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <[email protected]>
> ---
> * Changes since v1:
>
> As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
> ceph_real_mount().
>
> (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
> (not) do with this patch.)
>
> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
>
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
> + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
> prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
> prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
> prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
>
LGTM.
Thanks Luis.
Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
BRs
- Xiubo
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:49AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2022 22:34, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
> > Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
> > mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
> > with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
> > an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lu?s Henriques <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > * Changes since v1:
> >
> > As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
> > ceph_real_mount().
> >
> > (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
> > (not) do with this patch.)
> >
> > fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
> > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
> > + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
> > return ERR_PTR(err);
> > }
> >
> > base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
> > prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
> > prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
> > prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
> >
> LGTM.
>
> Thanks Luis.
>
> Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
Yes, sure. I'm fine with that.
Cheers,
--
Lu?s
Hi Luis,
Please check
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commit/205efda80b6759a741dde209a7158a5bbf044d23#diff-eb62c69f842ed95a7d047262a62946b07eda52f2ea49ae33c39ea13754dfc291.
Currently I only applied it into the 'testing' branch.
Thanks!
- Xiubo
On 09/11/2022 17:33, Luís Henriques wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:49AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
>> On 08/11/2022 22:34, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>> Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
>>> mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
>>> with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
>>> an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> * Changes since v1:
>>>
>>> As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
>>> ceph_real_mount().
>>>
>>> (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
>>> (not) do with this patch.)
>>>
>>> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
>>> out:
>>> mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
>>> + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
>>> return ERR_PTR(err);
>>> }
>>>
>>> base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
>>>
>> LGTM.
>>
>> Thanks Luis.
>>
>> Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
> Yes, sure. I'm fine with that.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Luís
>
On 09/11/2022 17:33, Luís Henriques wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:49AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
>> On 08/11/2022 22:34, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>> Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
>>> mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
>>> with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
>>> an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> * Changes since v1:
>>>
>>> As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
>>> ceph_real_mount().
>>>
>>> (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
>>> (not) do with this patch.)
>>>
>>> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>> @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
>>> out:
>>> mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
>>> + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
>>> return ERR_PTR(err);
>>> }
>>>
>>> base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
>>> prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
>>>
>> LGTM.
>>
>> Thanks Luis.
>>
>> Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
> Yes, sure. I'm fine with that.
Thanks.
I will mentioned this fix in that commit comments.
- Xiubo
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Luís
>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 05:57:41PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> Please check https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commit/205efda80b6759a741dde209a7158a5bbf044d23#diff-eb62c69f842ed95a7d047262a62946b07eda52f2ea49ae33c39ea13754dfc291.
Ugh! That's quite confusing :-)
I did a 'git fetch' and looked into commit 205efda80b67 ("ceph: implement
-o test_dummy_encryption mount option") instead, and compared it with it's
version in the wip-fscrypt branch. It looks good to me: the only
difference I see is my fix (adding the 'ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy'
call to 'ceph_real_mount'). Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Lu?s
>
> Currently I only applied it into the 'testing' branch.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Xiubo
>
>
> On 09/11/2022 17:33, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:49AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> > > On 08/11/2022 22:34, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
> > > > Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
> > > > mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
> > > > with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
> > > > an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lu?s Henriques <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > * Changes since v1:
> > > >
> > > > As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
> > > > ceph_real_mount().
> > > >
> > > > (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
> > > > (not) do with this patch.)
> > > >
> > > > fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > > index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > > @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
> > > > out:
> > > > mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
> > > > + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
> > > > return ERR_PTR(err);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
> > > > prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
> > > > prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
> > > > prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
> > > >
> > > LGTM.
> > >
> > > Thanks Luis.
> > >
> > > Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
> > Yes, sure. I'm fine with that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Lu?s
> >
>
On 09/11/2022 18:38, Luís Henriques wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 05:57:41PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> Please check https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commit/205efda80b6759a741dde209a7158a5bbf044d23#diff-eb62c69f842ed95a7d047262a62946b07eda52f2ea49ae33c39ea13754dfc291.
> Ugh! That's quite confusing :-)
>
> I did a 'git fetch' and looked into commit 205efda80b67 ("ceph: implement
> -o test_dummy_encryption mount option") instead, and compared it with it's
> version in the wip-fscrypt branch. It looks good to me: the only
> difference I see is my fix (adding the 'ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy'
> call to 'ceph_real_mount'). Thanks!
I will update the wip-fscrypt branch later.
Thanks!
> Cheers,
> --
> Luís
>
>> Currently I only applied it into the 'testing' branch.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> - Xiubo
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/2022 17:33, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:49AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2022 22:34, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Because ceph_init_fs_context() will never be invoced in case we get a
>>>>> mount error, destroy_mount_options() won't be releasing fscrypt resources
>>>>> with fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(). This will result in a memory leak. Add
>>>>> an invocation to this function in the mount error path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> * Changes since v1:
>>>>>
>>>>> As suggested by Xiubo, moved fscrypt free from ceph_get_tree() to
>>>>> ceph_real_mount().
>>>>>
>>>>> (Also used 'git format-patch' with '--base' so that the bots know what to
>>>>> (not) do with this patch.)
>>>>>
>>>>> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>>>> index 2224d44d21c0..f10a076f47e5 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
>>>>> @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct dentry *ceph_real_mount(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc,
>>>>> out:
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&fsc->client->mount_mutex);
>>>>> + ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(fsc);
>>>>> return ERR_PTR(err);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> base-commit: 8b9ee21dfceadd4cc35a87bbe7f0ad547cffa1be
>>>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 34ba9e6b37b68668d261ddbda7858ee6f83c82fa
>>>>> prerequisite-patch-id: 87f1b323c29ab8d0a6d012d30fdc39bc49179624
>>>>> prerequisite-patch-id: c94f448ef026375b10748457a3aa46070aa7046e
>>>>>
>>>> LGTM.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Luis.
>>>>
>>>> Could I fold this into the previous commit ?
>>> Yes, sure. I'm fine with that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> --
>>> Luís
>>>