[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSP1qs4SOHrDE0tO@stanley.mountain>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 09:05:30 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] fuse: Uninitialized variable in fuse_epoch_work()
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 10:23:31AM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21 2025, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 01:53:48PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21 2025, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >>
> >> > The "fm" pointer is either valid or uninitialized so checking for NULL
> >> > doesn't work. Check the "inode" pointer instead.
> >>
> >> Hmm? Why do you say 'fm' isn't initialised? That's what fuse_ilookup()
> >> is doing, isn't it?
> >>
> >
> > I just checked again on linux-next. fuse_ilookup() only initializes
> > *fm on the success path. It's either uninitialized or valid.
>
> Yikes! You're absolutely right, I'm sorry for replying without checking.
>
> Feel free to add my
>
> Reviewed-by: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
>
> Although I guess you're patch could also move the iput():
>
Yeah. Good point. It's cleaner that way. I've sent a v2.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists