linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix an error handling path in btrfs_read_sys

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: <20220517055528.GO4009@kadam>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 08:55:28 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     dsterba@...e.cz, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix an error handling path in
 btrfs_read_sys_array()

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 16/05/2022 à 17:01, David Sterba a écrit :
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 04:54:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 06:57:25AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 2022/5/14 20:01, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > > > If alloc_dummy_extent_buffer() we should return an error code, not 0 that
> > > > > would mean success.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: a1fc41ac28d3 ("btrfs: use dummy extent buffer for super block sys chunk array read")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
> > > > 
> > > > All my fault, thanks for catching it.
> > > > Qu
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I sent this patch in January and David was going to fold it into the
> > > original patch but it got lost.  Thanks, Christophe!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Not exactly.
> Your patch was:
> -	if (IS_ERR(sb))
> -		return PTR_ERR(sb);
> +	if (!sb)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Mine is only:
> -		return PTR_ERR(sb);
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> So for some reason, what you had reported was just half applied. (or half
> fixed by someone else)
> 

Oh that's interesting.  I must have seen the same Smatch warning that
you saw and ignored it because I got confused which patch I had sent.
The kbuild-bot also tried to send a warning, but I squashed it for
the same reasons.  So in terms of process issues and avoidable bugs this
one is partly my bad.

regards,
dan carpenter