* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [250304 07:07]: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:55:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:28:53AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > >>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [250211 03:11]: > >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:31:28AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > >>> >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [250207 20:26]: > >>> > > >>> >The subject of this patch set makes the issue sound much more sever than > >>> >it is. It currently sounds like a memory leak or a UAF, which isn't the > >>> >case. > >>> > > >>> > >>> Not intend to exaggerate the impact. > >>> > >>> Is this one would be better? > >>> > >>> maple_tree: make sure each node is dead on destroy > >> > >>Not really, you are fixing two nodes, one isn't even to do with the > >>destry/dead node. You are also not making sure each node is dead, but > >>fixing an issue with the leaf node. > >> > >>maple_tree: Fix the replacement of a root leaf node ? > >> > > > >One more question, would it be better to use this as the subject of patch 1? You are not fixing the replacement of the root leaf node, you are fixing the free path of the old root leaf node. The fix is in mt_destroy_walk(), I usually try to have the function name in the first line too.. maple_tree: Fix mt_destroy_walk() on root leaf node > > > > Liam, > > Are you ok with this and can I send a v2? Pleas send v2. Thanks, Liam
