On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:42:48PM +0000, Gulam Mohamed wrote:
> Description
> ===========
That's a weird way to format a patch. Between this and the odd subject
not matching patch 2 I was tricked into thinking this was just a cover
letter and patch 1 was missing for a while. Please take a look at other
patches/commit and try to word it similarly.
> V1->V2:
> Added a test case, 010, in blktests in tests/loop/
These kind of patch revision changelogs belong after the --- so that they
don't go into git history. Or even better into the cover letter, which
is missing here.
> Signed-off-by: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/block/loop.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 28a95fd366fe..9a235d8c062d 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -1717,6 +1717,24 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
> }
> #endif
>
> +static int lo_open(struct gendisk *disk, blk_mode_t mode)
> +{
> + struct loop_device *lo = disk->private_data;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (!lo)
> + return -ENXIO;
->private_data is never cleared, so the NULL check here doesn't
make sense.
> + err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_mutex);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (lo->lo_state == Lo_rundown)
> + err = -ENXIO;
> + mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
What if we race with setting Lo_rundown and that gets set right
after we unlock here?
