Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/4/18 8:27 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 5/4/18 5:47 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>> >From 626d33de1b70b11ecaf95a9f83f7644998e54cbb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
> >>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 23:03:48 +0900
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] loop: remember whether sysfs_create_group() succeeded
> >>>
> >>> syzbot is hitting WARN() triggered by memory allocation fault
> >>> injection [1] because loop module is calling sysfs_remove_group()
> >>> when sysfs_create_group() failed.
> >>> Fix this by remembering whether sysfs_create_group() succeeded.
> >>
> >> Can we store this locally instead of in the loop_device? Also,
> >> naming wise, something like sysfs_init_done would be more readily
> >> understandable.
> >
> > Whether sysfs entry for this loop device exists is per "struct loop_device"
> > flag, isn't it? What does "locally" mean?
>
> I'm assuming this is calling remove in an error path when alloc fails.
> So it should be possible to know locally whether this was done or not,
> before calling the teardown. Storing this is in the loop_device seems
> like a bit of a hack.
The loop module ignores sysfs_create_group() failure and pretends that
LOOP_SET_FD request succeeded. I guess that the author of commit
ee86273062cbb310 ("loop: add some basic read-only sysfs attributes")
assumed that it is not a fatal error enough to abort LOOP_SET_FD request.
Do we want to abort LOOP_SET_FD request if sysfs_create_group() failed?
>
> If that's not easily done, then my next suggestion would be to
> use a loop flag for it, LO_FLAGS_SYSFS_SETUP or something like that.
Yes, that would be possible.
