From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DACDC47E49 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E652087E for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qRZ3CPOm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C8E652087E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 79BD36B0003; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 74C4A6B0006; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:24:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 661C16B0007; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:24:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0234.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.234]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6746B0003 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D006F4DB0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:24:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76098252888.15.plant87_80b70d32eed13 X-HE-Tag: plant87_80b70d32eed13 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2318 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf36.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26E3B20717; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:24:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1572387883; bh=D+kyyB7UXdE00h1hhFmw71lmhkWEAKdVovYsmlb2WwI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qRZ3CPOmd40eSHqwIK8VBuAx4hiXX4EPyBgU/uTUURAPCZaYXWZCI/j3mXKKbSbzg RBwJKOZV21whk4IdUkTm0RZwpShqaZWp3xEMmtI2pmfB5ghWCcpzZ0Nb1MGNZLLkDy cSZYruN+QnJ5d7cCe7HQzU5XR3+c/cFAKicpSvXc= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:24:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Mike Kravetz Cc: cgxu519@mykernel.net, linux-mm , linux-kernel , David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix error handling in init_hugetlbfs_fs() Message-Id: <20191029152442.32bf51a13e48d9b2d83cd504@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <94b6244d-2c24-e269-b12c-e3ba694b242d@oracle.com> References: <20191017103822.8610-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <16e15cd0096.1068d5c9f40168.8315245997167313680@mykernel.net> <94b6244d-2c24-e269-b12c-e3ba694b242d@oracle.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:47:38 -0700 Mike Kravetz wrote: > It is assumed that the hugetlbfs_vfsmount[] array will contain > either a valid vfsmount pointer or NULL for each hstate after > initialization. Changes made while converting to use fs_context > broke this assumption. > > While fixing the hugetlbfs_vfsmount issue, it was discovered that > init_hugetlbfs_fs never did correctly clean up when encountering > a vfs mount error. What were the user-visible runtime effects of this bug? (IOW: why does it warrant the cc:stable?)