From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (dggsgout12.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80D6117C9; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723685778; cv=none; b=u/aFE+qII1M0pDSMdZSNKjETyElgWB6oADRm+trbhJH+yqosEtaztTSJpo8ng0DRJTyHJ4NMReFeffqHVY09QxE1pmbWmAYuQrLATaiupXRkRXDPINutUGY5DFac2N7bqh+77ab+WNMD2sPThZ0+WhYmVSHiRDbhQ4H+HPVNvNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723685778; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4D6Szzp8yOxn1qdN+JL9HZF4/Od7GnMRQJiljyjspbQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KPS8KD81u07wBMRU11/DEFhD1ANP7GhXDPmWS4E+ViI1Y2d9tcHQznPvM6K84uTAtLnQh41QDrC3Vf1i0py8gpDlw/dSUqxVRvdvIVADoeThUvgAJ/L45HcXpH+KsaIYPBtTRUn4QRaQUf0pDhxWVz4kSImyBiPUpYtGkCWJDLA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.93.142]) by dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Wknl13t51z4f3js2; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:35:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.112]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DB81A018D; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:36:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.129] (unknown [10.174.178.129]) by APP1 (Coremail) with SMTP id cCh0CgDHGUyJW71mwcmsBg--.62677S2; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:36:11 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] ext4: avoid potential buffer_head leak in __ext4_new_inode To: Zhang Yi Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca References: <20240813120712.2592310-1-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> <20240813120712.2592310-3-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> <0351b3b1-e84a-9e41-a492-743f5bbea910@huawei.com> From: Kemeng Shi Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:36:09 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0351b3b1-e84a-9e41-a492-743f5bbea910@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID:cCh0CgDHGUyJW71mwcmsBg--.62677S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Kr4rtw1fur4rJr17Zr1UWrg_yoW8Ar1fpr Z3tF1UKFs5Xr9Igryft34FvF1rtan7Ka17JF4Svw1rWFsrKrnaqrWxKFy8WFn8Ars7XF4q qFsIkF48Xr129a7anT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkEb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x 0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG 6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMxk0xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21lc7CjxVAaw2AF wI0_JF0_Jw1l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4 xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r126r1D MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I 0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWU JVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jjVb kUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: 5vklyvpphqwq5kxd4v5lfo033gof0z/ on 8/14/2024 4:48 PM, Zhang Yi wrote: > On 2024/8/13 20:07, Kemeng Shi wrote: >> If a group is marked EXT4_GROUP_INFO_IBITMAP_CORRUPT after it's inode >> bitmap buffer_head was successfully verified, then __ext4_new_inode >> will get a valid inode_bitmap_bh of a corrupted group from >> ext4_read_inode_bitmap in which case inode_bitmap_bh misses a release. >> Hnadle "IS_ERR(inode_bitmap_bh)" and group corruption separately like >> how ext4_free_inode does to avoid buffer_head leak. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi >> --- >> fs/ext4/ialloc.c | 10 +++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c >> index ad7f13976dc6..f24a238b6b09 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c >> @@ -1054,9 +1054,13 @@ struct inode *__ext4_new_inode(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, >> brelse(inode_bitmap_bh); >> inode_bitmap_bh = ext4_read_inode_bitmap(sb, group); >> /* Skip groups with suspicious inode tables */ >> - if (((!(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT4_FC_REPLAY)) >> - && EXT4_MB_GRP_IBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp)) || >> - IS_ERR(inode_bitmap_bh)) { >> + if (IS_ERR(inode_bitmap_bh)) { >> + inode_bitmap_bh = NULL; >> + goto next_group; >> + } >> + if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT4_FC_REPLAY) && >> + EXT4_MB_GRP_IBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp)) { >> + brelse(inode_bitmap_bh); >> inode_bitmap_bh = NULL; > > Wouldn't the inode_bitmap_bh be brelsed in the next loop or the end of this > function? why not just goto next_group? Sure, goto next_group directly will be better. Will do it in next version. Thanks, Kemeng > > Thanks, > Yi. > >> goto next_group; >> } >> >