Re: [PATCH 0/6] 9pfs: fix fstat() after unlink() (with a Linux guest)

[Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>]

On Monday, November 25, 2024 12:35:05 PM CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:23:39 +0100
> Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 25, 2024 9:45:54 AM CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:28:40 +0100
> > > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > > Probably there are still other 9p request types that should be fixed for this
> > > > use-after-unlink idiom, but this series fixes the mentioned bug report as
> > > > described by reporter, so fair enough to round this up here for now.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > When I last worked on that issue I had spotted some other places to fix.
> > > 
> > > Maybe you can find some ideas for future work at :
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/gkurz/qemu/tree/9p-attr-fixes
> > 
> > Was there a reason why you left those patches on the attic?
> > 
> 
> Lack of cycles

Yeah, that's clear, I more meant in sense of known issues, as I haven't
spotted something obvious (above nit level) that would have spoken against
pushing those patches.

But OK, I also understand the lack of reviewers at that time, etc.

/Christian

> > What I am seeing is that it was not fixing Tgetattr (i.e. fstat() on guest),
> > so it wouldn't have fixed the original reporter's scenario, but they would
> > have brought things forward. So just wondering ...
> > 
> 
> Yeah the fix for Tgetattr was in some other series I had sent at the time but
> I did not get much feeback then...