On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 03:59:48PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:52:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > This reverts commit 60263d5889e6dc5987dc51b801be4955ff2e4aa7. > > > > > > Reverting since this commit opens a potential avenue for abuse. > > > > > > The C-reproducer and more information can be found at the link below. > > > > > > With this patch applied, I can no longer get the repro to trigger. > > > > Well, maybe you should actually debug and try to understand what is > > going on before blindly reverting random commits. > > That is not a reasonable suggestion. > > Requesting that someone becomes an area expert on a huge and complex > subject such as file systems (various) in order to fix your broken > code is not rational. Sending a patch to revert a change you don't understand is also not rational. If you've bisected it to a single change -- great! If reverting the patch still fixes the bug -- also great! But don't send a patch when you clearly don't understand what the patch did. > If you'd like to use the PoC provided as a basis to test your own > solution, then go right ahead. However, as it stands this API should > be considered to contain security risk and should be patched as > quickly as can be mustered. Reversion of the offending commit seems > to be the fastest method to achieve that currently. This is incoherent. There is no security risk.
