> 2022年6月18日 18:49，Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> 写道： > > Hi! >>>> >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.17.14 release. >>>> There are 772 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Responses should be made by Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:48:02 +0000. >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>>> >>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.17.14-rc1.gz >>>> or in the git tree and branch at: >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.17.y >>>> and the diffstat can be found below. >>>> > ... >>> We will bisect and let you know more details about this reported problem. >> >> The bisect script pointed me to this commit and reverted and tested and >> confirmed. > > Can you add some printks into that? Because I'm pretty sure this patch > does not break anything. (It should not fix much, either.) > >> commit 1883088ed4a0d5cc9cea500ca4e89a354ab32c11 >> Author: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@xxxxxxxxx> > >> md: bcache: check the return value of kzalloc() in detached_dev_do_request() >> >> commit 40f567bbb3b0639d2ec7d1c6ad4b1b018f80cf19 upstream. >> >> The function kzalloc() in detached_dev_do_request() can fail, so its >> return value should be checked. >> >> Fixes: bc082a55d25c ("bcache: fix inaccurate io state for detached > ... > >> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c >> @@ -1107,6 +1107,12 @@ static void detached_dev_do_request(struct >> bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio, >> * which would call closure_get(&dc->disk.cl) >> */ >> ddip = kzalloc(sizeof(struct detached_dev_io_private), GFP_NOIO); >> + if (!ddip) { >> + bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE; >> + bio->bi_end_io(bio); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> ddip->d = d; >> /* Count on the bcache device */ >> ddip->orig_bdev = orig_bdev; >> > > So... for patch to make any difference, memory allocation has to fail > and ddip has to be NULL. > > Before the patch, it would oops in "ddip->d = d;". With the patch, you > do some kind of error handling. Even if it is buggy, it should not do > more harm than immediate oops. I just receive this single email and don’t have any idea for the context and what the problem is. Where can I see the whole conversation? BTW, maybe commit 7d6b902ea0e0 (“bcache: memset on stack variables in bch_btree_check() and bch_sectors_dirty_init()”) is necessary, how about trying to add it in? Coly Li
