* [Cluster-devel] [bug report] GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the journal or statfs
@ 2017-08-24 11:03 Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 12:23 ` Andrew Price
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2017-08-24 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Hello Bob Peterson,
The patch 9bfef7554e20: "GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the
journal or statfs" from Aug 16, 2017, leads to the following static
checker warning:
fs/gfs2/super.c:949 gfs2_sync_fs()
error: we previously assumed 'sdp' could be null (see line 947)
fs/gfs2/super.c
942 static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
943 {
944 struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
945
946 gfs2_quota_sync(sb, -1);
947 if (wait && sdp)
^^^
Existing code checks for NULL.
948 gfs2_log_flush(sdp, NULL, NORMAL_FLUSH);
949 return sdp->sd_log_error;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Patch adds unchecked dereference.
950 }
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Cluster-devel] [bug report] GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the journal or statfs
2017-08-24 11:03 [Cluster-devel] [bug report] GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the journal or statfs Dan Carpenter
@ 2017-08-24 12:23 ` Andrew Price
2017-08-25 16:06 ` Bob Peterson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Price @ 2017-08-24 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:03:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Bob Peterson,
>
> The patch 9bfef7554e20: "GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the
> journal or statfs" from Aug 16, 2017, leads to the following static
> checker warning:
>
> fs/gfs2/super.c:949 gfs2_sync_fs()
> error: we previously assumed 'sdp' could be null (see line 947)
>
> fs/gfs2/super.c
> 942 static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> 943 {
> 944 struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
> 945
> 946 gfs2_quota_sync(sb, -1);
> 947 if (wait && sdp)
> ^^^
> Existing code checks for NULL.
The NULL check seemed odd to me, and other ->sync_fs implementations don't check it, but digging through the history there's a reason it was added (see 9171f5a ). That said, I can't see the quota_off code path that it was guarding against any more, so perhaps it is no longer required.
Andy
>
> 948 gfs2_log_flush(sdp, NULL, NORMAL_FLUSH);
> 949 return sdp->sd_log_error;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Patch adds unchecked dereference.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Cluster-devel] [bug report] GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the journal or statfs
2017-08-24 12:23 ` Andrew Price
@ 2017-08-25 16:06 ` Bob Peterson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bob Peterson @ 2017-08-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
----- Original Message -----
| On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:03:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
| > Hello Bob Peterson,
| >
| > The patch 9bfef7554e20: "GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the
| > journal or statfs" from Aug 16, 2017, leads to the following static
| > checker warning:
| >
| > fs/gfs2/super.c:949 gfs2_sync_fs()
| > error: we previously assumed 'sdp' could be null (see line 947)
| >
| > fs/gfs2/super.c
| > 942 static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
| > 943 {
| > 944 struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
| > 945
| > 946 gfs2_quota_sync(sb, -1);
| > 947 if (wait && sdp)
| > ^^^
| > Existing code checks for NULL.
|
| The NULL check seemed odd to me, and other ->sync_fs implementations don't
| check it, but digging through the history there's a reason it was added (see
| 9171f5a ). That said, I can't see the quota_off code path that it was
| guarding against any more, so perhaps it is no longer required.
|
| Andy
|
| >
| > 948 gfs2_log_flush(sdp, NULL, NORMAL_FLUSH);
| > 949 return sdp->sd_log_error;
| > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| > Patch adds unchecked dereference.
|
Hi Andy (and Dan),
You're right. I did some research and this check for "&& sdp" seems completely
unnecessary now. In fact, I took it out and tried to recreate the problem
for which it was added (mounting with an invalid lock protocol) and it did
not recreate.
Therefore, I removed the offending check and did a force-push back to for-next.
Thanks; well spotted.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-08-25 16:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-08-24 11:03 [Cluster-devel] [bug report] GFS2: Withdraw for IO errors writing to the journal or statfs Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 12:23 ` Andrew Price
2017-08-25 16:06 ` Bob Peterson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).