Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180729220317.GB30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180729220453.13431-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180729220453.13431-3-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <CAOQ4uxgOLEpaZ=UwA_CG6CzYbsJBPV4unEV9D5mXrooLXO0+0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOssrKfmR0beT4dXjg1dn6DBsPbmGBpS5xHpG9QtAAEgMWo_Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOssrKfmR0beT4dXjg1dn6DBsPbmGBpS5xHpG9QtAAEgMWo_Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 19:29:13 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjHdtjc-aXHb-kxghAxU1oRbhEHmBVX5+=w8CgcnGBSGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] vfs: don't evict uninitialized inode
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:41 AM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> iput() ends up calling ->evict() on new inode, which is not yet initialized
> >> by owning fs.  So use destroy_inode() instead.
> >>
> >> Add to sb->s_inodes list only if inode is not in I_CREATING state (meaning
> >> that it wasn't allocated with new_inode(), which already does the
> >> insertion).
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> >> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
> >> Fixes: 80ea09a002bf ("vfs: factor out inode_insert5()")
> >
> > Backport hint: this patch depends on the patch ("new primitive:
> > discard_new_inode()") currently commit 22dc9a168272 in Al's for-next.
> >
> > Still trying to figure out the best format to channel this information to
> > stable maintainers...
>
> Why are we talking about stable?  This regression was introduced in
> 4.18-rc1, spotted by Al *and* reported by testers.  It needs to be
> fixed in one way or other in 4.18.
>

Miklos,

Seeing that it wasn't fixed in 4.18..

> I've nothing against applying "new primitive: discard_new_inode() now
> + this patch, but if it is deemed too risky at this point, we could
> just revert the buggy commit 80ea09a002bf ("vfs: factor out
> inode_insert5()") and its dependencies.
>

Should we propose for stable the upstream commits:
e950564b97fd vfs: don't evict uninitialized inode
c2b6d621c4ff new primitive: discard_new_inode()

Or should we go with the independent v1 patch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10511969/

Thanks,
Amir.