Re: [PATCH net v2] 9p/xen : Fix use after free bug in xen_9pfs_front_remove due to race condition

[Zheng Hacker]

<asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2023年3月14日周二 06:08写道：
>
> Jakub Kicinski wrote on Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:30:54PM -0700:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:54:20 +0100 Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> > > >   for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rings; i++) {
> > > > +         /*cancel work*/
> > > It isn't needed I think, the function cancel_work_sync() tells everything
> > > here.
> >
> > Note that 9p is more storage than networking, so this patch is likely
> > to go via a different tree than us.
>
> Any review done is useful anyway ;)
>
> Either Eric or me will take the patch, but in the past such fixes have
> sometimes also been taken into the net tree; honestly I wouldn't mind a
> bit more "rule" here as it's a bit weird that some of our patches are Cc
> to fsdevel@ (fs/ from fs/9p) and the other half netdev@ (net/ from
> net/9p), but afaict the MAINTAINERS syntax doesn't have a way of
> excluding e.g. net/9p from the `NETWORKING [GENERAL]` group so I guess
> we just have to live with that.

Dear Dominique,

Sorry for my confusion and thanks for your patient explanation. I'll take care
of it when submitting a fix to the linux kernel in the future.

>
> There's little enough volume and netdev automation sends a mail when a
> patch is picked up, so as long as there's no conflict (large majority of
> the cases) such fixes can go either way as far as I'm concerned.
>
Thanks again for your effort. Hope you have a good day :)

Best regards,
Zheng