[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191017000703.GA4271@eaf>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:07:03 -0300
From: Ernesto A. Fernández
<ernesto.mnd.fernandez@...il.com>
To: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hfsplus: add a check for hfs_bnode_find
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:06:20PM +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> hfs_brec_update_parent misses a check for hfs_bnode_find and may miss
> the failure.
> Add a check for it like what is done in again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/hfsplus/brec.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/brec.c b/fs/hfsplus/brec.c
> index 1918544a7871..22bada8288c4 100644
> --- a/fs/hfsplus/brec.c
> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/brec.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,8 @@ static int hfs_brec_update_parent(struct hfs_find_data *fd)
> new_node->parent = tree->root;
> }
> fd->bnode = hfs_bnode_find(tree, new_node->parent);
> + if (IS_ERR(fd->bnode))
> + return PTR_ERR(fd->bnode);
You shouldn't just return here, you still hold a reference to new_node.
The call to hfs_bnode_find() after the again label seems to be making a
similar mistake.
I don't think either one can actually fail though, because the parent
nodes have all been read and hashed before, haven't they?
> /* create index key and entry */
> hfs_bnode_read_key(new_node, fd->search_key, 14);
> cnid = cpu_to_be32(new_node->this);
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists