On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 13:09 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:34:57 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > See > > > https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/autofs-fix-possible-inode-leak-in-autofs_fill_super.patch > > > > > > I think this will fix it, I'll forward it to Andrew if you agree: > > > > Actually, looking at it again the above patch is plain not needed, > > dropping it and updating the patch which follows it in the series > > is what needs to be done. > > > > Andrew, what should I do to make this easiest for you to handle, > > a respost with v2 in the subject of the patch affected by dropping > > the above patch? > > I dropped the patch and fixed up the fallout. Thanks Andrew, much appreciated. > > The patch wasn't true anyway. "There is no check at all for a failure > to allocate the root inode in autofs_fill_super(), handle it." In fact, > d_make_root(NULL) will just return NULL and autofs_fill_super() handles > that appropriately. The not so funny thing is that I'm sure I looked at this some time in the distant past and saw how d_make_root() behaved. The lesson for me is don't try and fix other things seen while working on something else, return later and do it properly. > > However let's note that when autofs_get_inode() or d_make_root() fail, > autofs_fill_super() will return -EINVAL. Should have been -ENOMEM, I > guess? > That's right, but I don't think that's urgent so I'll send a patch for it after the coming merge window. The strictexpire option addition is urgent for me so I don't want to upset any chance of that being merged sooner rather than later. Ian
