On 6/29/24 2:10 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:07:52PM -0600, Clayton Casciato wrote:
>> [ Upstream commit bdcb8aa434c6d36b5c215d02a9ef07551be25a37 ]
>>
>> In gfs2_put_super(), whether withdrawn or not, the quota should
>> be cleaned up by gfs2_quota_cleanup().
>>
>> Otherwise, struct gfs2_sbd will be freed before gfs2_qd_dealloc (rcu
>> callback) has run for all gfs2_quota_data objects, resulting in
>> use-after-free.
>>
>> Also, gfs2_destroy_threads() and gfs2_quota_cleanup() is already called
>> by gfs2_make_fs_ro(), so in gfs2_put_super(), after calling
>> gfs2_make_fs_ro(), there is no need to call them again.
>>
>> The origin of a cherry-pick conflict is the (relevant) code block added in
>> commit f66af88e3321 ("gfs2: Stop using gfs2_make_fs_ro for withdraw")
>>
>> There are no references to gfs2_withdrawn() nor gfs2_destroy_threads() in
>> gfs2_put_super(), so we can simply call gfs2_quota_cleanup() in a new else
>> block as bdcb8aa434c6 achieves.
>>
>> Else braces were used for consistency with the if block.
>>
>> Sponsor: 21SoftWare LLC
>
> That's not a valid tag for kernel commits, sorry.
>
The documentation mentions "some people also put extra tags at the end.
They’ll just be ignored for now [...]"
I don't imagine this would be appropriate on a line *after* the sign-off?
>> Signed-off-by: Clayton Casciato <majortomtosourcecontrol@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> What happened to the original authorship information, and all of the
> other signed-off-by that were on the original commit? YOu can not just
> delete them, would you want someone doing that to a patch you
> contributed?
>
I didn't understand this and was concerned along the lines of "it is very
impolite to change one submitter’s code and make him endorse your bugs"
> as-is, we can't take this, please fix up.
I've submitted v2
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thank you for the feedback!
Clayton Casciato
