On 03/25/2019 11:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:04 PM Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> >> I'm fine either way, I think the rcu_destroy_inode would indeed simplify >> it nicely. In any case fwiw, here's what I'd have ready for standby on bpf >> side and tested as well. Decided to get rid of bpf_evict_inode() entirely >> since the only callback we'd really need is on final inode destruction: > > Yes, this looks correct to me. > > I think this is worth doing regardless. Even if we then make the vfs > layer add that rcu_destroy_inode(), that will fit very well with this > patch, and getting rid of the special bpf_evict_inode() logic and just > letting the normal vfs inode cleanup happen looks like the right > thing. > > So ack from me on your > >> Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix use after free in bpf_evict_inode > > patch regardless of what else we might end up doing in this area to > clean things up.
Ok, thanks a lot. In that case, I just pushed this one to bpf tree, and it will come your way the usual route via David. Thanks, Daniel
