On 06.11.2018 12:23, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail, and this case
>> it remains leaked (fuse_retrieve_end(), which is called
>> on error path, does not do that). Also, fc->num_waiting,
>> will never be decremented, and fuse_wait_aborted() will
>> never finish. So, put the request patently.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
>
> Posted same patch yesterday for a syzbot report. How did you notice this?
I've found this by code review. I did this last week and I have 10 patches more
on different theme. I was waiting for when the merge window opens.
>
>> ---
>> fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> index ae813e609932..6fe330cc9709 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> @@ -1768,8 +1768,10 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct
>> inode *inode,
>> req->in.args[1].size = total_len;
>>
>> err = fuse_request_send_notify_reply(fc, req, outarg->notify_unique);
>> - if (err)
>> + if (err) {
>> fuse_retrieve_end(fc, req);
>> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
>> + }
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>>
