On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:58:37AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 3/4/24 09:47, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:40:35AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >>On 3/4/24 09:31, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > >>>A revert is justified when a series of patches is buggy and had > >>>insufficient review prior to merging. > >> > >>That's not how Linux kernel development works. If a bug can get fixed > >>easily, a fix is preferred instead of reverting + reapplying a patch. > > > >Your original "fix" is not right, and it wasn't properly tested. Commit > >54cbc058d86beca3515c994039b5c0f0a34f53dd needs to be reverted. > > As I explained before, the above reply is not sufficiently detailed to > motivate a revert. You have introduced a use-after-free. You have not corrected the underlying cause of that use-after-free. Once you call ->ki_cancel(), you can't touch the kiocb. The call into ->ki_cancel() can result in a subsequent aio_complete() happening on that kiocb. Your change is wrong, your "fix" is wrong, and you are refusing to understand *why* your change was wrong in the first place. You haven't even given me a test case justifying your change. You need to justify your change to the maintainer, not the other way around. Revert 54cbc058d86beca3515c994039b5c0f0a34f53dd and the problem goes away. -ben > Bart. > -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now."
