[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e8dd4f5-29dc-9459-6ba2-f399258952dc@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:31:47 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>
CC: <xiang@...nel.org>, <chao@...nel.org>, <huyue2@...lpad.com>,
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <brauner@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yangerkun@...wei.com>, <houtao1@...wei.com>,
Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] erofs: get rid of erofs_fs_context
Hi Jingbo,
On 2024/4/22 18:25, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>
> On 4/19/24 8:36 PM, Baokun Li wrote:
>
>> @@ -761,12 +747,15 @@ static void erofs_free_dev_context(struct erofs_dev_context *devs)
>>
>> static void erofs_fc_free(struct fs_context *fc)
>> {
>> - struct erofs_fs_context *ctx = fc->fs_private;
>> + struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = fc->s_fs_info;
>> +
>> + if (!sbi)
>> + return;
>
> This is the only difference comparing to the original code literally.
> Is there any chance that fc->s_fs_info can be NULL when erofs_fc_free()
> is called?
>
> Otherwise looks good to me.
>
When sget_fc() executes successfully, fc->s_fs_info is set to NULL,
so the following NULL pointer dereference may occur:
do_new_mount
vfs_get_tree
erofs_fc_get_tree
get_tree_bdev
sget_dev
sget_fc
s = alloc_super
s->s_fs_info = fc->s_fs_info;
fc->s_fs_info = NULL;
fill_super
// return error
deactivate_locked_super
kfree(sbi);
put_fs_context
sbi = fc->s_fs_info
kfree(sbi->fsid)
Thank you very much for the review!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists