Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 03:35:59PM +0200:
> 2. I fixed the conflict and gave your patch a test spin, and it triggers
> the BUG_ON(!fid); that you added with that patch. Backtrace based on
> 30306f6194ca ("Merge tag 'hardening-v5.19-rc3' ..."):
hm, that's probably the version I sent without the fallback to
private_data fid if writeback fid was sent (I've only commented without
sending a v2)
> 1. your EBADF patch is based on you recent get/put refactoring patch, so it won't apply on stable.
ugh, you are correct, that was wrong as well in the version I sent by
mail... I've hurried that way too much.
The patch that's currently on the tip of my 9p-next branch should be
alright though, I'll resend it now so you can apply cleanly if you don't
want to fetch https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next
> Did your patch work there for you? I mean I have not applied the other pending
> 9p patches, but they should not really make difference, right? I won't have
> time today, but I will continue to look at it tomorrow. If you already had
> some thoughts on this, that would be great of course.
Yes, my version passes basic tests at least, and I could no longer
reproduce the problem.
Without the if (!fid) fid = file->private_data though it does fail
horribly like you've found out.
--
Dominique
