On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > > > > >> I think it's fair if something like XFS (not meant for tiny systems AFAIK?) > > > >> excludes SLOB (meant for tiny systems). Clearly nobody tried to use these > > > >> two together last 5 years anyway. > > > > > > > > +1 for adding Kconfig option, it seems like some things are not meant to > > > > be together. > > > > > > But if we patch SLOB, we won't need it. > > > > OK, so we consider XFS on SLOB a supported configuration that might be > > used and should be tested. > > I'll look into maybe adding a config with CONFIG_SLOB and CONFIG_XFS_FS > > to syzbot. > > > > It seems that we need to patch SLOB anyway, because any other code can > > hit the very same issue. > > > > It's probably best to introduce both (SLOB fix and Kconfig change for > XFS), at least in the interim because the combo of XFS and SLOB could be > broken in other ways. If syzbot doesn't complain with a patched kernel to > allow SLOB to be used with XFS, then we could potentially allow them to be > used together. > > (I'm not sure that this freeing issue is the *only* thing that is broken, > nor that we have sufficient information to make that determination right > now..) I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other usage errors. Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next. --D
