linux-kernel - Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] OCFS2: remove useless err

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:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:40:33 +0800
From:   Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        ChenGang <cg.chen@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] OCFS2: remove useless err



On 20/2/4 19:34, Joseph Qi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/2/4 18:59, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2020/1/26 上午9:52, Joseph Qi 写道:
>>>
>>
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ static struct buffer_head *ocfs2_find_entry_el(const char *name, int namelen,
>>>>  				num++;
>>>>  
>>>>  				bh = NULL;
>>>> -				err = ocfs2_read_dir_block(dir, b++, &bh,
>>>> +				ocfs2_read_dir_block(dir, b++, &bh,
>>>>  							   OCFS2_BH_READAHEAD);
>>>
>>> Umm... missing error checking here?
>>
>>
>> /*
>>  * This function forces all errors to -EIO for consistency with its
>>  * predecessor, ocfs2_bread().  We haven't audited what returning the
>>  * real error codes would do to callers.  We log the real codes with
>>  * mlog_errno() before we squash them.
>>  */
>> static int ocfs2_read_dir_block(struct inode *inode, u64 v_block,
>>                                 struct buffer_head **bh, int flags)
>>
>> According to ocfs2_read_dir_block comments, caller don't care the err value, func will log it.
>>
>> So is this patch ok? :)
>>
> If we got error here, it means the buffer head is invalid.
> So how about mark it as NULL and skip it?
> 

Okay, in this case, bh is already NULL and will skip below,
so it looks fine to me.