Regression on linux-next (next-20250120)
Al Viro
viro at zeniv.linux.org.uk
Wed Jan 29 04:37:12 UTC 2025
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 ;-/
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list