[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111224225525.GR23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:55:25 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file locking fix for 3.2
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:50:12PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> locks: fix null dereference on lease-break failure path
>
> Commit 778fc546f749c588aa2f6cd50215d2715c374252 "locks: fix tracking of
> inprogress lease breaks" introduced a null dereference on failure to
> allocate memory.
>
> This means an open (without O_NONBLOCK set) on a file with a lease
> applied (generally only done when Samba or nfsd (with v4) is running)
> could crash if a kmalloc() fails.
NULL? AFAICS, lease_alloc() returns ERR_PTR() on failure... I really
don't like the look of that code, TBH - at the very least it needs to
be commented a lot. E.g. the rules for calling or not calling ->lm_break()
are really not obvious - AFAICS, we do that if
i_have_this_lease || (mode & O_NONBLOCK)
is true *or* if allocation has succeeded. The former condition is what'll
end up with -EWOULDBLOCK; I can understand not wanting to return that in
preference to -ENOMEM, but... Do we want to skip ->lm_break() stuff only
in case of allocation failures that won't be overridden by -EWOULDBLOCK?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists