On 9/9/22 22:06, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:25:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >> > I tend to agree with you. A mount operation shouldn’t panic the >> > kernel. >> >> Hmm kmalloc(64) shouldn't normally due that due to the the underlying page >> allocation falling into the "too small to fail" category, wonder if >> syzkaller was doing anything special here? > > Here's the repro: > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=17cd7fa3080000 > > you can see it does: > > fd = open("/proc/thread-self/fail-nth", O_RDWR); > if (fd == -1) > exit(1); > char buf[16]; > sprintf(buf, "%d", nth); > if (write(fd, buf, strlen(buf)) != (ssize_t)strlen(buf)) > > so this is the kind of stupid nitpicky bug that we shouldn't be > reporting, let alone fixing, IMO. Ah, thanks. Well I'm ok with eventually removing all such BUG_ONs including what Christophe Jaillet suggested, but it certainly isn't urgent nor deserves Cc: stable then.
