[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de4ac81a-8e47-a75b-fd17-274680b8d29d@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:51:36 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 026/239] f2fs: fix to do sanity check in is_alive()
On 2022/2/2 3:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Oops, you're right, my bad.
>>
>>>
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> @@ -589,6 +589,9 @@ static bool is_alive(struct f2fs_sb_info
>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>> }
>>>> + if (f2fs_check_nid_range(sbi, dni->ino))
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +
>>>> *nofs = ofs_of_node(node_page);
>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node);
>>>> f2fs_put_page(node_page, 1);
>>>
>>> AFAICT f2fs_put_page() needs to be done in the error path, too.
>>>
>>> (Problem seems to exist in mainline, too).
>>>
>>> Something like this?
>>
>> Could you please send a formal patch to f2fs mailing list for better review?
>>
>> Anyway, thanks a lot for the report and the patch!
>
> I'm quite busy with other reviews at the moment. If you could submit a
> patch, it would be great, otherwise I'll get to it .. sometime.
I've submitted a patch, could you please take a look?
Thanks,
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists