Re: question about fs/ubifs/orphan.c

[Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>]

On 08/07/12 15:40, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 11:21 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> The function ubifs_orphan_start_commit contains the code:
>>
>>          list_for_each_entry(orphan, &c->orph_new, new_list) {
>>                  ubifs_assert(orphan->new);
>>                  orphan->new = 0;
>>                  *last = orphan;
>>                  last = &orphan->cnext;
>>          }
>>          *last = orphan->cnext;
>>
>> After list_for_each_entry, orphan is just an address at an offset from the 
>> list head, not a pointer to a real structure.  So it does not seem correct 
>> to access its cnext field.
> 
> Looks like you've spotted a but - we write some irrelevant address to an
> area within the 'struct ubifs_info'.
> 
> I think what the code meant to do is to write NULL there:
> 
> - *last = orphan->cnext;
> + *last = NULL;
> 
> I wonder if this could be a reason for some of strange bugs we have seen
> reports for.

Perhaps not because in that case c->cmt_orphans is zero so the cnext list
is never dereferenced.

> 
> Well-spotted Julia, thanks! How did you do this - writing another cocci
> script for the kernel?
>