MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230129060452.7380-1-zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>
 <CAHk-=wjw-rrT59k6VdeLu4qUarQOzicsZPFGAO5J8TKM=oukUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+EjmnRqpLuBFPX1@bombadil.infradead.org> <4ffbb0c8-c5d0-73b3-7a4e-2da9a7b03669@inria.fr>
 <Y+Ja5SRs886CEz7a@kadam> <CAHk-=wg6ohuyrmLJYTfEpDbp2Jwnef54gkcpZ3-BYgy4C6UxRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+KP/fAQjawSofL1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y+KP/fAQjawSofL1@gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:24:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgmZDqCOynfiH4NFoL50f4+yUjxjp0sCaWS=xUmy731CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: block: sleeping in atomic warnings
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        maobibo <maobibo@loongson.cn>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 9:53 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> It's a false positive.  See the comment above fscrypt_destroy_keyring()

Hmm. Ok. Unfortunate.

>  If the filesystem has not been mounted, then the call from __put_super()
> is needed, but blk_crypto_evict_key() can never be executed in that case.

It's not all that clear that some *other* error might not have
happened to keep the mount from actually succeeding, but after the
keys have been instantiated?

IOW, what's the thing that makes "blk_crypto_evict_key() can never be
executed in that case" be obvious?

I think _that_ is what might want a comment, about how we always call
generic_shutdown_super() before the last put_super() happens.

It does seem like Dan's automated checks could be useful, but if
there's no sane way to avoid the false positives, it's always going to
be a lot of noise ;(

           Linus