linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: cleanup redundant code in __btrfs_close

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG5DWogQakNYYYyzAmrh3Qrox9daneN7sgFuY=xN+oeo=vks-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:40:50 +0400
From:	Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@...il.com>
To:	Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@...il.com>
Cc:	Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
	"open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: cleanup redundant code in __btrfs_close_devices()

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2013 12:15 AM, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c |    2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>>> index 1d1b595..124228e 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>>> @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct
>>>> btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
>>>>                /* Safe because we are under uuid_mutex */
>>>>                if (device->name) {
>>>>                        name = rcu_string_strdup(device->name->str,
>>>> GFP_NOFS);
>>>> -                       BUG_ON(device->name && !name); /* -ENOMEM */
>>>> +                       BUG_ON(!name); /* -ENOMEM *
>>>
>>> Nice catch! out of memory should not trigger BUG_ON()..
>>> Maybe we can handle it gracefully.
>>
>> Maybe return -ENOMEM ?
>
> Yeah, BUG_On is really unfriendly. And here ENOMEM triggers
> BUG_ON() is a lazy approach.
>
> I think we can  return -ENOMEM rather than BUG_ON(), the caller can handle this.

I will write a patch, when this one will be merged, to avoid conflicts,
and also because the issue that this patch solves is different from BUG_ON().

>
> Thanks,
> Wang
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Wang
>>>
>>>>                        rcu_assign_pointer(new_device->name, name);
>>>>                }
>>>>                new_device->bdev = NULL;
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Respectfully
>> Azat Khuzhin
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
Respectfully
Azat Khuzhin
--
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/