[PATCH] btrfs: Add missing sctx check in cleanup path

[PATCH] btrfs: Add missing sctx check in cleanup path

[Hongling Zeng]

Add sctx NULL check in the sort_clone_roots cleanup path for
consistency with other cleanup paths in the function.

Signed-off-by: Hongling Zeng <zenghongling@kylinos.cn>
---
 fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index 3ae480c7474b..2d81fac03a3d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -8250,7 +8250,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct btrfs_root *send_root, const struct btrfs_ioctl_sen
 		free_orphan_dir_info(sctx, odi);
 	}
 
-	if (sort_clone_roots) {
+	if (sctx && sort_clone_roots) {
 		for (i = 0; i < sctx->clone_roots_cnt; i++) {
 			btrfs_root_dec_send_in_progress(
 					sctx->clone_roots[i].root);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add missing sctx check in cleanup path

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 05:16:04PM +0800, Hongling Zeng wrote:
> Add sctx NULL check in the sort_clone_roots cleanup path for
> consistency with other cleanup paths in the function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hongling Zeng <zenghongling@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> index 3ae480c7474b..2d81fac03a3d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> @@ -8250,7 +8250,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct btrfs_root *send_root, const struct btrfs_ioctl_sen
>  		free_orphan_dir_info(sctx, odi);
>  	}
>  
> -	if (sort_clone_roots) {
> +	if (sctx && sort_clone_roots) {

The check for sctx is indeed missing but in the else branch the
condition is inside the for loop:

  for (i = 0; sctx && i < clone_sources_to_rollback; i++) {

It would be better to place it there for consistency.

Overall in the function many of the sctx checks can be removed if the
allocation is moved to the beginning.

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add missing sctx check in cleanup path

[Hongling Zeng]

在 2026年07月14日 02:35, David Sterba 写道:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 05:16:04PM +0800, Hongling Zeng wrote:
>> Add sctx NULL check in the sort_clone_roots cleanup path for
>> consistency with other cleanup paths in the function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongling Zeng <zenghongling@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
>> index 3ae480c7474b..2d81fac03a3d 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
>> @@ -8250,7 +8250,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct btrfs_root *send_root, const struct btrfs_ioctl_sen
>>   		free_orphan_dir_info(sctx, odi);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	if (sort_clone_roots) {
>> +	if (sctx && sort_clone_roots) {
> The check for sctx is indeed missing but in the else branch the
> condition is inside the for loop:
>
>    for (i = 0; sctx && i < clone_sources_to_rollback; i++) {
>
> It would be better to place it there for consistency.
>
> Overall in the function many of the sctx checks can be removed if the
> allocation is moved to the beginning.
  Thanks for the review.

   You're right, putting the sctx check inside the for loop condition 
would be more
   consistent with the else branch pattern. I'll send a v2 patch with 
this change.

   Best regards,
   Hongling Zeng