On 2021/08/18 23:41, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> On 2021/08/18 22:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Hi Tetsuo, >>> >>> I might sound like a broken record, but we need to reduce the locking >>> complexity, not make it worse and fall down the locking cliff. I did >>> send a suggested series this morning, in which you found a bunch of >>> bugs. I'd appreciate it if you could use your superior skills to >>> actually help explain the issue and arrive at a common solution that >>> actually simplifies things instead of steaming down the locking cliff >>> full speed. Thank you very much. >> >> I posted "[PATCH] loop: break loop_ctl_mutex into loop_idr_spinlock and loop_removal_mutex" >> which reduces the locking complexity while fixing bugs, but you ignored it. Instead, >> you decided to remove cryptoloop module (where userspace doing "modprobe cryptoloop" >> will break). That is, you decided not to provide patches which can be backported. > > Do not ever worry about backporting patches. Worry about getting the > changes and code correct, stable work can come afterwards, if needed. The loop module is one of critical components for syzkaller fuzzing. Bugs which involves the loop module prevents syzkaller from finding/testing other bugs. But changes are continuously applied without careful review. Therefore, the changes and code are not getting correct. Stable work cannot come afterwards...
