linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: allocate extent state and check the result properly

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:55:21 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: allocate extent state and check the result properly

Excerpts from Xiao Guangrong's message of 2011-04-18 21:49:52 -0400:
> On 04/12/2011 04:14 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > It doesn't allocate extent_state and check the result properly:
> > - in set_extent_bit, it doesn't allocate extent_state if the path is not
> >   allowed wait
> > 
> > - in clear_extent_bit, it doesn't check the result after atomic-ly allocate,
> >   we trigger BUG_ON() if it's fail
> > 
> > - if allocate fail, we trigger BUG_ON instead of returning -ENOMEM since
> >   the return value of clear_extent_bit() is ignored by many callers
> > 
> 
> Ping...to see what happened. :-)

Sorry, could you please change this to check the results of the atomic
allocatoin in set/clear_extent_bit?  I'd rather not add a new BUG_ON
deeper into the code.

-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/