RE: [PATCH v2] hfsplus: fix s_fs_info leak on mount setup failure

[Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 18:25 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 05:52:57PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 05:40:47PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 05:30:29PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > 
> > > > While we are at it, this
> > > >         kfree(sbi->s_vhdr_buf);
> > > > 	kfree(sbi->s_backup_vhdr_buf);
> > > > might as well go into ->kill_sb().  That would result in the (untested)
> > > > delta below and IMO it's easier to follow that way...
> > > 
> > > AFAICS once you've got ->s_root set, you can just return an error and
> > > be done with that - regular cleanup should take care of those parts
> > > (note that iput(NULL) is explicitly a no-op and the same goes for
> > > cancel_delayed_work_sync() on something that has never been through
> > > queue_delayed_work()).
> > 
> > Scratch the last one - you'd get nls leak that way, thanks to the
> > trickery in there...  Depending on how much do you dislike cleanup.h
> > stuff, there might be a way to deal with that, though...
> 
> See viro/vfs.git #untested.hfsplus (I've applied leak fix to your
> #for-next, commits in question are done on top of that).
> 
> It builds, but I've done no other testing on it.  And nls.h bit
> needs to be discussed on fsdevel, obviously.

I did run the xfstests for HFS+ with viro/vfs.git #untested.hfsplus. Everything
looks good, I don't see any new issues. Currently, around 29 test-cases fail for
HFS+. I see the same number of failures with applied patchset.

The code looks good. And I am ready to take the patchset into HFS/HFS+ tree.
Would you like to send the pathset for nls.h modification discussion?

Thanks,
Slava.