From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
syzbot <syzbot+c88a7030da47945a3cc3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in mntput_no_expire (2)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:22:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210406132205.qnherkzif64xmgxg@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGxeaTzdnxn/3dsY@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:13:13PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> > And while we're at it might I bring up the possibility of an additional
> > cleanup of how we currently call path_init().
> > Right now we pass the return value from path_init() directly into e.g.
> > link_path_walk() which as a first thing checks for error. Which feels
> > rather wrong and has always confused me when looking at these codepaths.
>
> Why?
Why is a another function in charge of checking the return value of an
initialization function. If something like path_init() fails why is the
next caller responsible for rejecting it's return value and then we're
passing that failure value through the whole function with if (!err)
ladders but as I said it's mostly style preferences.
>
> > I get that it might make sense for reasons unrelated to path_init() that
> > link_path_walk() checks its first argument for error but path_init()
> > should be checked for error right away especially now that we return
> > early when LOOKUP_CACHED is set without LOOKUP_RCU.
>
> But you are making the _callers_ of path_init() do that, for no good
> reason.
I'm confused why having callers of functions responsible for checking
error values is such an out-of-band concept suddenly. I don't think it's
worth arguing over this though.
>
> > thing especially in longer functions such as path_lookupat() where it
> > gets convoluted pretty quickly. I think it would be cleaner to have
> > something like [1]. The early exists make the code easier to reason
> > about imho. But I get that that's a style discussion.
>
> Your variant is a lot more brittle, actually.
>
> > @@ -2424,33 +2424,49 @@ static int path_lookupat(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags, struct path *path
> > int err;
> >
> > s = path_init(nd, flags);
> > - if (IS_ERR(s))
> > - return PTR_ERR(s);
>
> Where has that come from, BTW? Currently path_lookupat() does no such thing.
Hm? Are you maybe overlooking path_init() which assigns straight into
the variable declaration? Or are you referring to sm else?
static int path_lookupat(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags, struct path *path)
{
const char *s = path_init(nd, flags);
int err;
if (unlikely(flags & LOOKUP_DOWN) && !IS_ERR(s)) {
err = handle_lookup_down(nd);
if (unlikely(err < 0))
s = ERR_PTR(err);
}
while (!(err = link_path_walk(s, nd)) &&
(s = lookup_last(nd)) != NULL)
;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 9:09 [syzbot] WARNING in mntput_no_expire (2) syzbot
2021-04-01 12:16 ` syzbot
2021-04-01 18:32 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 15:45 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 16:09 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-01 17:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 17:59 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 19:11 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 2:34 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 2:38 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 15:56 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 16:40 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:44 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 17:05 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 18:50 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 20:17 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 11:44 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-05 16:18 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 17:08 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-05 18:23 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 18:28 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 20:07 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-06 1:38 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 2:24 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 12:35 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-06 13:13 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 13:22 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2021-04-06 14:15 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 14:23 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-06 14:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:52 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:55 ` Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210406132205.qnherkzif64xmgxg@wittgenstein \
--to=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=syzbot+c88a7030da47945a3cc3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).