Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 06:58:14 -0700
From:   Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>
To:     Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        German Maglione <gmaglione@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH v2 0/2] virtiofs submounts that are still in use
 forgotten by shrinker
Message-ID: <20231004135814.GA2051@templeofstupid.com>
References: <cover.1696043833.git.kjlx@templeofstupid.com>
 <97163cdf-ab2c-4fb8-abf2-738a4680c47f@fastmail.fm>
 <20231003164823.GA1995@templeofstupid.com>
 <18552fc7-184c-4bc7-9154-c885fae06d31@fastmail.fm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18552fc7-184c-4bc7-9154-c885fae06d31@fastmail.fm>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 12:54:49AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/3/23 18:48, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:18:42AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 10/2/23 17:24, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I recently ran into a situation where a virtiofs client began
> > > > encountering EBADF after the client / guest system had an OOM.  After
> > > > reproducing the issue and debugging, the problem is caused by a
> > > > virtiofsd submount having the nodeid of its root dentry fogotten.  This
> > > > occurs because it borrows the reference for this dentry from the parent
> > > > that is passed into the function.
> > > 
> > > Please also note that there will be merge conflicts with atomic open patches
> > > from Dharmendra/me. Although probably not too difficult to resolve.
> > 
> > Sure. I'm happy to reparent, resolve those conflicts, re-test, and send
> > another revision when we're ready.  I suspect there are going to be
> > additional changes requested on the v2.  With that in mind, I'll hold
> > off for the moment unless it is going to cause headaches for you.
> 
> I certainly also didn't mean that you should check for merge conflicts, it
> was more an annotation that it might come up - depending on the merge order.
> Please don't stop to do improvements, resolving merge conflicts shouldn't be
> difficult.
> I'm going to add you to the atomic open patch series to keep you updated, if
> you don't mind.

Thanks, no objections from me.  I'm willing to help with any conflict
resolution or retesting tasks, if anything turns out to be non-trivial.
My goal is to get these patches to the state where they're acceptable.
I'm happy to make additional changes, or work against a different
branch.


-K