On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:45:16AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >* 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 > Thanks, this is better. > >> > >> >> Liam, >> >> Are you ok with this and can I send a v2? > >Pleas send v2. > > >Thanks, >Liam -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
