From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F36A111713 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 04:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738125438; cv=none; b=LqxjaNoAEOTnwfWbwD6MIoxPVOYisEYSD/Vlre70hZ48CNPSAWgHTgZMo8hF1PjOm5YkuRnaZ7QGvDCDNAs0TvKM7DjwtLfh0cUjf+858B5siyQq/GJprS37Bn+IsNBv1FkZxXTFasZ23IvAnExNl1AdbaqdpigycONF/h6lEfw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738125438; c=relaxed/simple; bh=W4ob3anL8zRM6rkF52Be+FUlxFmIA/SMHeUCC7+ZOsg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BYqk8YaEC84PCXoJFxKYe2dMS2+g4TF9khtvFXeq2q2jeZn3ofvsmLiDS4iLM4JDQsISkjbJmYTUupGR1v22NcpGewCOTxEnVUQREsX32AWwwAMpcxQrSSohD0vO8Vj8EKoNI7DIBRaBz1L+aDFKW+98lQbiwZPUO0gjbiaKPy4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b=MlUf2rJ3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="MlUf2rJ3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JeX1tJAMrqtvR3jMf2b/sXaEH55G0StnWi48rc5YjKQ=; b=MlUf2rJ3uR4N5+mmtmJhhLS3DQ RG+fqLhuTpSM0fsEz2aO/Ta9PawFZxxAsxThE+6kLou0Ug3Ha2fLYHZnua8PcLrlYhbxo6TVmtSOI bzwXsJKwCUZybuP/cqZ2rGBsh+MPTdI5cz+n1qIhuvi31K0s/fJjDyfcYojq/XHEwaXXsNI52U+Cz cwPFlvMwCxMj/dar3EreUPVWeDm7jlVusk0PFj5BZEdEKi9/lrlEFj/jYNQBYt8GWGujfNrzfVBsx 0vCuQaP//LyvHJNcLBp60DOSubMBo3m7eyOpiqiD/MeOx9g6lQYM5PiVigRhhCpbv9uioucLaVcDL B7d75YGA==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tczpA-0000000EzFI-0DpE; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 04:37:12 +0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 04:37:12 +0000 From: Al Viro To: "Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Kurmi, Suresh Kumar" , "Saarinen, Jani" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Gordeev Subject: Re: Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) Message-ID: <20250129043712.GQ1977892@ZenIV> References: <20250123181853.GC1977892@ZenIV> <20250127050416.GE1977892@ZenIV> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Al Viro On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 04:00:58PM +0000, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote: > Unfortunately this change does not help us. I think it is the methods member that causes the problem. So the following change solves the problem for us. > > > --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c > +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c > @@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ static int __debugfs_file_get(struct dentry *dentry, enum dbgfs_get_mode mode) > if (!fsd) > return -ENOMEM; > > + fsd->methods = 0; > + > if (mode == DBGFS_GET_SHORT) { > const struct debugfs_short_fops *ops; > ops = fsd->short_fops = DEBUGFS_I(inode)->short_fops; D'OH. Both are needed, actually. Slightly longer term I would rather split full_proxy_{read,write,lseek}() into short and full variant, getting rid of the "check which pointer is non-NULL" and killed the two remaining users of debugfs_real_fops() outside of fs/debugfs/file.c; then we could union these ->..._fops pointers, but until then they need to be initialized. And yes, ->methods obviously needs to be initialized. Al, bloody embarrassed ;-/