MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230313090002.3308025-1-zyytlz.wz@163.com> <ZA8rDCw+mJmyETEx@localhost.localdomain>
 <20230313143054.538565ac@kernel.org> <ZA+etMBFSw/999Aq@codewreck.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZA+etMBFSw/999Aq@codewreck.org>
From:   Zheng Hacker <hackerzheng666@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:14:48 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJedcCyH_JvVeyFq1i8Udx=W7PO7F+aYeQp+r6dbWQLqMNgy_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] 9p/xen : Fix use after free bug in
 xen_9pfs_front_remove due to race condition
To:     asmadeus@codewreck.org
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>,
        Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@163.com>, ericvh@gmail.com,
        lucho@ionkov.net, linux_oss@crudebyte.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 1395428693sheep@gmail.com,
        alex000young@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

<asmadeus@codewreck.org> =E4=BA=8E2023=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8814=E6=97=A5=E5=91=
=A8=E4=BA=8C 06:08=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> Jakub Kicinski wrote on Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:30:54PM -0700:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:54:20 +0100 Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> > > >   for (i =3D 0; i < priv->num_rings; i++) {
> > > > +         /*cancel work*/
> > > It isn't needed I think, the function cancel_work_sync() tells everyt=
hing
> > > here.
> >
> > Note that 9p is more storage than networking, so this patch is likely
> > to go via a different tree than us.
>
> Any review done is useful anyway ;)
>
> Either Eric or me will take the patch, but in the past such fixes have
> sometimes also been taken into the net tree; honestly I wouldn't mind a
> bit more "rule" here as it's a bit weird that some of our patches are Cc
> to fsdevel@ (fs/ from fs/9p) and the other half netdev@ (net/ from
> net/9p), but afaict the MAINTAINERS syntax doesn't have a way of
> excluding e.g. net/9p from the `NETWORKING [GENERAL]` group so I guess
> we just have to live with that.

Dear Dominique,

Sorry for my confusion and thanks for your patient explanation. I'll take c=
are
of it when submitting a fix to the linux kernel in the future.

>
> There's little enough volume and netdev automation sends a mail when a
> patch is picked up, so as long as there's no conflict (large majority of
> the cases) such fixes can go either way as far as I'm concerned.
>
Thanks again for your effort. Hope you have a good day :)

Best regards,
Zheng