[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e662cb6-47d9-4bbd-855d-1f6d5edb8633@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:04:39 +0800
From: "heming.zhao@...e.com" <heming.zhao@...e.com>
To: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
syzbot+ab134185af9ef88dfed5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: jlbec@...lplan.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark@...heh.com,
ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: remove unreasonable unlock
On 8/19/24 10:51, Lizhi Xu wrote:
> There was a lock release before exiting, so remove the unreasonable unlock.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+ab134185af9ef88dfed5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ab134185af9ef88dfed5
> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c
> index cdb9b9bdea1f..e62c7e1de4eb 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,6 @@ int ocfs2_read_blocks(struct ocfs2_caching_info *ci, u64 block, int nr,
> if (bhs[i] == NULL) {
> bhs[i] = sb_getblk(sb, block++);
> if (bhs[i] == NULL) {
> - ocfs2_metadata_cache_io_unlock(ci);
> status = -ENOMEM;
> mlog_errno(status);
> /* Don't forget to put previous bh! */
The fix looks good to me. However, I found another issue in this function.
In the for-loop after the 'read_failure' label, the condition
'(bh == NULL) && flags includes OCFS2_BH_READAHEAD' is missing.
When this contidion is true, this for-loop will call ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh),
which then triggers a NULL pointer access error.
If you agree with my analysis, please add the new fix and send a v2 patch.
Thanks,
Heming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists