Re: [PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field to struct backing_dev_info

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Sun 19-04-20 18:06:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 08:29:21AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 4/19/20 12:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 08:40:20AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >>>> This can have a sideeffect not only bdi->dev_name will be truncated to 64
> >>>> chars (which generally doesn't matter) but possibly also kobject name will
> >>>> be truncated in the same way.  Which may have user visible effects. E.g.
> >>>> for fs/vboxsf 64 chars need not be enough. So shouldn't we rather do it the
> >>>> other way around - i.e., let device_create_vargs() create the device name
> >>>> and then copy to bdi->dev_name whatever fits?
> >>>
> >>> How about using kvasprintf() instead of vsnprintf()?
> >>
> >> That is what v1 did, see the thread in response to that on why it isn't
> >> a good idea.
> >
> > Are you perhaps referring to patch "[PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field 
> > to struct backing_dev_info" 
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20200416071519.807660-4-hch@lst.de/) 
> > and also to the replies to that patch? This is what I found in the replies: 
> > "When driver try to to re-register bdi but without release_bdi(), the old 
> > dev_name will be cover directly by the newer in bdi_register_va(). So, I am 
> > not sure whether it can cause memory leak for bdi->dev_name."
> >
> > Has it been considered to avoid that leak by freeing bdi->dev_name from 
> > unregister_bdi(), e.g. as follows?
> 
> We'd need some protection against concurrent accesses as unregister_bdi
> can race with them.  But with RCU that could be handled, so let me try
> that.

Yeah, that's what Yufen tried in his series some time ago and what I think
you personally didn't like :).

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR