Re: sb->s_fs_info freeing fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:29:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> "Since ramfs/devpts uses get_tree_nodev() it doesn't rely on
> sb->s_fs_info. So there's no use after free risk as with other
> filesystems.
> 
> But there's no need to deviate from the standard cleanup logic and cause
> reviewers to verify whether that is safe or not."
> 
> and similar for the other two:
> 
> "Since hypfs/selinuxfs uses get_tree_single() it doesn't rely on
> sb->s_fs_info. So there's no use after free risk as with other
> filesystems.
> 
> But there's no need to deviate from the standard cleanup logic and cause
> reviewers to verify whether that is safe or not."
> 
> If that is good enough for people then I can grab it.

Fine with me.  And yes, I'd rather not have private data freed before
SB_ACTIVE is cleared even if it is fine right now.  It's just a bug
waiting to happen.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux