On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:34:12AM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > Yes, I agree it's better if security_inode_alloc() is moved to the end as > possible in the sense of avoiding similar issues. > But, would that vfs change be safe to backport to stable trees? Yes. > It looks like the error handling for security_inode_alloc() is in the > middle of inode_init_always() for a very long time.. Look at the initializations done after it. The only thing with effects outside of inode itself is (since 2010) an increment of nr_inodes. > If you want to see the impact of the vfs change, I think it's one way > to apply this one in advance. Or if you want to fix it in one step, > I think it's good too. How do you feel about this ? IMO that should go into inode_init_always(), with Cc:stable. If you (or Dongliang Mu, or anybody else) would post such variant with reasonable commit message, I'll pick it into vfs.git and feed to Linus in the next window. E.g. into #work.inode, with that branch being made never-rebased, so that you could pull it into your development branch as soon as it's there...
