On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:51:34AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > 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.
Hi Laszlo, Thank you for the testing. I reposed patch 1 to take care of coding style issues. Functionally both the versions are same. > > 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.) David Gilbert can add your Tested-by: while applying this patch series. I think adding it to patch 3 makes most sense. Thanks Vivek