Re: [PATCH 0/3] may miss to set node dead on destroy

Wei Yang
2025-03-05T00:32:54Z

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:45:16AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> [250304 07:07]:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:55:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:28:53AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>> >>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> [250211 03:11]:
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:31:28AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>> >>> >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> [250207 20:26]:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >The subject of this patch set makes the issue sound much more sever than
>> >>> >it is. It currently sounds like a memory leak or a UAF, which isn't the
>> >>> >case.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Not intend to exaggerate the impact.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is this one would be better?
>> >>>
>> >>> maple_tree: make sure each node is dead on destroy
>> >>
>> >>Not really, you are fixing two nodes, one isn't even to do with the
>> >>destry/dead node. You are also not making sure each node is dead, but
>> >>fixing an issue with the leaf node.
>> >>
>> >>maple_tree: Fix the replacement of a root leaf node ?
>> >>
>> >
>> >One more question, would it be better to use this as the subject of patch 1?
>
>You are not fixing the replacement of the root leaf node, you are fixing
>the free path of the old root leaf node.
>
>The fix is in mt_destroy_walk(), I usually try to have the function name
>in the first line too..
>
>maple_tree: Fix mt_destroy_walk() on root leaf node
>

Thanks, this is better.

>
>> >
>>
>> Liam,
>>
>> Are you ok with this and can I send a v2?
>
>Pleas send v2.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Liam

--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me