On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
Thanks,
Miklos
> ---
> fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> index ae813e609932..6fe330cc9709 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> @@ -1768,8 +1768,10 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
> req->in.args[1].size = total_len;
>
> err = fuse_request_send_notify_reply(fc, req, outarg->notify_unique);
> - if (err)
> + if (err) {
> fuse_retrieve_end(fc, req);
> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
> + }
>
> return err;
> }
>
