On 5/8/19 12:10 AM, yuyufen wrote:
> On 2019/4/20 4:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Continuing discussion about commit 58b6e5e8f1ad ("hugetlbfs: fix memory
>> leak for resv_map") brought up the issue that inode->i_mapping may not
>> point to the address space embedded within the inode at inode eviction
>> time. The hugetlbfs truncate routine handles this by explicitly using
>> inode->i_data. However, code cleaning up the resv_map will still use
>> the address space pointed to by inode->i_mapping. Luckily, private_data
>> is NULL for address spaces in all such cases today but, there is no
>> guarantee this will continue.
>>
>> Change all hugetlbfs code getting a resv_map pointer to explicitly get
>> it from the address space embedded within the inode. In addition, add
>> more comments in the code to indicate why this is being done.
>>
>> Reported-by: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
>
> Dose this patch have been applied?
Andrew has pulled it into his tree. However, I do not believe there has
been an ACK or Review, so am not sure of the exact status.
> I think it is better to add fixes label, like:
> Fixes: 58b6e5e8f1ad ("hugetlbfs: fix memory leak for resv_map")
>
> Since the commit 58b6e5e8f1a has been merged to stable, this patch also be needed.
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg298740.html
It must have been the AI that decided 58b6e5e8f1a needed to go to stable.
Even though this technically does not fix 58b6e5e8f1a, I'm OK with adding
the Fixes: to force this to go to the same stable trees.
--
Mike Kravetz
