linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: turn unpin_extent

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:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:12:58 +0000
From:   Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To:     Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
CC:     "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: turn unpin_extent_cache() into a void function

On 18.07.23 19:39, Luís Henriques wrote:
> The value of the 'ret' variable is never changed in function
> unpin_extent_cache().  And since the only caller of this function doesn't
> check the return value, it can simply be turned into a void function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>

Hmm but inside unpin_extent_cache() there is this:


	/* [...] */
	em = lookup_extent_mapping(tree, start, len);

	WARN_ON(!em || em->start != start);

	if (!em)
		goto out;
	/* [...] */

out:
	write_unlock(&tree->lock);
	return ret;

}

Wouldn't it be better to either actually handle the error, OR
change the WARN_ON() into an ASSERT()?

Given the fact, that if the lookup fails, we've passed wrong 
parameters somehow, an ASSERT() would be a good way IMHO.

Thoughts?