On Wed 04-09-24 09:32:26, Yu Kuai wrote: > 在 2024/09/03 23:51, Jens Axboe 写道: > > On 9/2/24 7:03 AM, Yu Kuai wrote: > > > From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Our syzkaller report a UAF problem(details in patch 1), however it can't > > > be reporduced. And this set are some corner cases fix that might be > > > related, and they are found by code review. > > > > > > Yu Kuai (4): > > > block, bfq: fix possible UAF for bfqq->bic with merge chain > > > block, bfq: choose the last bfqq from merge chain in > > > bfq_setup_cooperator() > > > block, bfq: don't break merge chain in bfq_split_bfqq() > > > block, bfq: use bfq_reassign_last_bfqq() in bfq_bfqq_move() > > > > > > block/bfq-cgroup.c | 7 +------ > > > block/bfq-iosched.c | 17 +++++++++++------ > > > block/bfq-iosched.h | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > BFQ is effectively unmaintained, and has been for quite a while at > > this point. I'll apply these, thanks for looking into it, but I think we > > should move BFQ to an unmaintained state at this point. > > Sorry to hear that, we would be willing to take on the responsibility of > maintaining this code, please let me know if there are any specific > guidelines or processes we should follow. We do have customers are using > bfq in downstream kernels, and we are still running lots of test for > bfq. That would be awesome. I don't think there's much of a process to follow given there's not much happening in BFQ. You can add yourself to MAINTAINERS file under "BFQ I/O SCHEDULER" entry and then do your best to keep BFQ alive by fixing bugs and responding to reports :) I'm not sure if Jens would prefer you'd create your git tree from which he will pull or whether merging patches is fine - he has to decide. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
