Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bd80cd0d-a364-4ebd-2a89-933f79eaf4c7@tmb.nu>
In-Reply-To: <bd80cd0d-a364-4ebd-2a89-933f79eaf4c7@tmb.nu>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:51:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wix7+mGzS-hANyk7DZsZ1NgGMHjPzSQKggEomYrRCrP_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/251] 5.15.47-rc2 review
To:     Thomas Backlund <tmb@tmb.nu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
        Slade Watkins <slade@sladewatkins.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:20 AM Thomas Backlund <tmb@tmb.nu> wrote:
>
> I "think" this is the suggested fix:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=for_next&id=46b6418e26c7c26f98ff9c2c2310bce5ae2aa4dd

Ugh, this is just too ugly for words.

That's not a fix. That's a "hide the problem" patch.

Now, admittedly clearly the "hide the problem" code already existed,
and was just moved earlier, but I really think this whole "we're
calling __mark_inode_dirty() on an inode that isn't even *initialized*
yet" is a much deeper issue, and shouldn't have some hacky work-around
in __mark_inode_dirty() that just happens to make it work.

I don't mind that patch per se - moving the code is fine.

But I *do* mind the patch when the reason is to hide that wrong
ordering of operations.

Now, maybe a proper fix might be to say that new_inode_pseudo() should
always initialize i_state to I_DIRTY_ALL or something like that. The
comment already says that they cannot participate in writeback, so
maybe they should be disabled that way (ie a pseudo inode is always
dirty and marking it dirty does nothing).

And then you get rid of the noop_backing_dev_info entirely.

Or just make sure that noop_backing_dev_info is fully initialized
before it's used.

Because I think the real problem here is that things have a pointer to
an uninitialized backing_dev_info.

Hmm? Jan?

                   Linus