linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] ext4: factor out ext4_group_desc_init() and ext4_group_desc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220908090320.tykdh44uhxgimwzf@riteshh-domain>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:33:20 +0530
From:   "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz,
        lczerner@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] ext4: factor out ext4_group_desc_init() and
 ext4_group_desc_free()

On 22/09/03 11:01AM, Jason Yan wrote:
> Factor out ext4_group_desc_init() and ext4_group_desc_free(). No
> functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/super.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 69921a850644..468a958cf414 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -4743,9 +4743,89 @@ static int ext4_geometry_check(struct super_block *sb,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void ext4_group_desc_free(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi)
> +{
> +	struct buffer_head **group_desc;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	group_desc = rcu_dereference(sbi->s_group_desc);
> +	for (i = 0; i < sbi->s_gdb_count; i++)
> +		brelse(group_desc[i]);
> +	kvfree(group_desc);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +}

I thought we could use ext4_group_desc_free() in ext4_put_super() too. 
But I guess in there within the same rcu_read_lock/unlock() we call for 
kvfree of flex_groups as well. 

But this change looks good to me. 
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>