Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix a NULL pointer dereference | From | Kangjie Lu <> | Date | Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:26:58 -0500 |
| |
On 3/14/19 4:15 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2019/3/14 下午4:03, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> On 14.03.19 г. 10:02 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> >>> On 2019/3/14 下午3:54, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14.03.19 г. 9:50 ч., Kangjie Lu wrote: >>>>> btrfs_lookup_block_group may fail and return NULL. The fix goes >>>>> to out when it fails to avoid NULL pointer dereference. >>>> Actually no, in this case btrfs_lookup_block_group must never fail >>>> because if we have an allocated eb then it must have been allocated from >>>> a bg. >>> Yep, that's the normal case. >>> >>> However I'm wondering if it's possible to get a bad eb which is cached. >>> >>> Then we could hit such situation. >>> >>> So I still believe being safe here still makes sense, especially who >>> knows future fuzzed image will be. >> Then I'd rather have ASSERT(cache) > Isn't assert() a bad idea for production build without assert() support?
I also agree with that, in general, assert should not be used in
production runs. The first patch might be better.
> > Thanks, > Qu > >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c >>>>> index 994f0cc41799..b1e7985bcb9d 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c >>>>> @@ -7303,6 +7303,8 @@ void btrfs_free_tree_block(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, >>>>> >>>>> pin = 0; >>>>> cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, buf->start); >>>>> + if (!cache) >>>>> + goto out; >>>>> >>>>> if (btrfs_header_flag(buf, BTRFS_HEADER_FLAG_WRITTEN)) { >>>>> pin_down_extent(fs_info, cache, buf->start, >>>>>
| |