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  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, 22 Jan 2019 18:19:08 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Anders Roxell <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Michal Hocko <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backing-dev: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions

On 2019-01-22 17:25:03 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void bdi_debug_unregister(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > >  {
> > > -	debugfs_remove(bdi->debug_stats);
> > > -	debugfs_remove(bdi->debug_dir);
> > > +	debugfs_remove_recursive(bdi->debug_dir);
> > 
> > this won't remove it.
> Which is fine, you don't care.

but if you cat the stats file then it will dereference the bdi struct
which has been free(), right?

> But step back, how could that original call be NULL?  That only happens
> if you pass it a bad parent dentry (which you didn't), or the system is
> totally out of memory (in which case you don't care as everything else
> is on fire).

debugfs_get_inode() could do -ENOMEM and then the directory creation
fails with NULL.

> > If you return for "debug_dir == NULL" then it is a nice cleanup.
> No, that's not a valid thing to check for, you should not care as it
> will not happen.  And if it does happen, it's ok, it's only debugfs, no
> one can rely on it, it is only for debugging.

It might happen with ENOMEM as of now. It could happen for other reasons
in future if the code changes.

> thanks,
> greg k-h


Powered by blists - more mailing lists