Hi Vivek, On 12/07/20 19:30, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Laszlo is writing a virtiofs client for OVMF and noticed that if he > sends fuse FLUSH command for directory object, virtiofsd crashes. > virtiofsd does not expect a FLUSH arriving for a directory object. > > This patch series has one of the patches which fixes that. It also > has couple of posix lock fixes as a result of lo_flush() related debugging. > > Vivek Goyal (3): > virtiofsd: Set up posix_lock hash table for root inode > virtiofsd: Disable posix_lock hash table if remote locks are not > enabled > virtiofsd: Check file type in lo_flush() > > tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >
I put back the (wrong) FLUSH for the root dir into my code temporarily, to reproduce the crash (it does, with v5.2.0-rc4). Then I applied your series [*], and retested. [*] I'm unsure about the email you sent in response to 1/3, namely <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-12/msg01504.html>; I ignored that when applying the patches. Indeed now I get a graceful -EBADF: [13316825985314] [ID: 00000004] unique: 60, opcode: FLUSH (25), nodeid: 1, insize: 64, pid: 1 [13316825993517] [ID: 00000004] unique: 60, error: -9 (Bad file descriptor), outsize: 16 For whichever patch in the series my testing is relevant: Tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> (I'm having some difficulty figuring out which patch(es) should carry my T-b. - I think I didn't really test patch#2 with the above, so that one should likely not get the T-b - I think patch#3 is what I really tested. - But, if that's the case, doesn't patch#3 make the fix in patch#1 untestable, in my scenario? I believe the code is no longer reached in lo_flush(), due to patch#3, where the change from patch#1 would matter. Patch#1 seems correct, and the last paragraph of its commit message relevant, but I think my testing currently only covered patch#3. I'll let you decide where to apply my T-b.) Thanks! Laszlo