linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: ntfs: super: added return error value while map failed

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: <PH0PR04MB7416746F354376654DD601869B029@PH0PR04MB7416.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:10:50 +0000
From:   Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To:     "lijian_8010a29@....com" <lijian_8010a29@....com>,
        "clm@...com" <clm@...com>,
        "josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        "dsterba@...e.com" <dsterba@...e.com>
CC:     "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lijian <lijian@...ong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: ntfs: super: added return error value while map
 failed

On 29/06/2021 12:41, lijian_8010a29@....com wrote:
> From: lijian <lijian@...ong.com>
> 
> When lookup_extent_mapping failed, should return '-ENOENT'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: lijian <lijian@...ong.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/extent_map.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c
> index 4a8e02f7b6c7..e9d9f2bfc11d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c
> @@ -305,8 +305,10 @@ int unpin_extent_cache(struct extent_map_tree *tree, u64 start, u64 len,
>  
>  	WARN_ON(!em || em->start != start);
>  
> -	if (!em)
> +	if (!em) {
> +		ret = -ENOENT;
>  		goto out;
> +	}
>  
>  	em->generation = gen;
>  	clear_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED, &em->flags);
> 

You'll still need to properly handle the returned error in the caller,
otherwise this patch makes no sense at all.

Also the subject should be something like "btrfs: handle failures from unpin_extent_cache" or
sth. like this.