From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9685E7F5D for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:12:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E1F304071 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 48T2LgL5lJHIZ4SV for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5265B4D2.3000907@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:12:18 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix possible NULL dereference References: <1382380366-26540-1-git-send-email-geyslan@gmail.com> <5265956F.4010700@sandeen.net> <20131021224459.GE16161@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20131021224459.GE16161@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Alex Elder , open list , XFS FILESYSTEM , Ben Myers , "Geyslan G. Bem" , kernel-br@googlegroups.com On 10/21/13 5:44 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:58:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 10/21/13 1:32 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: >>> This patch puts a 'break' in the true branch, avoiding the 'icptr->ic_next' >>> dereferencing. >> >> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen > > Actually, NACK. I felt that one coming ;) >> Hm, yeah - cmn_err(CE_PANIC, " " ); used to BUG_ON, but the newer >> xfs_emerg() doesn't. >> >> Dave, was that intentional? > > Of course it was. ;) xfs_emerg() is only called from the debug code > in xlog_verify_iclog(), xlog_verify_tail_lsn and assfail(). > > In the case of assfail(), it has it's own BUG() call, so it does > everything just fine. > > In the case of xlog_verify_iclog() when icptr is NULL, it will > panic immediately after the message is printed, just like the old > code. i.e. this patch isn't fixing anything we need fixed. A BUG() is probably warranted, then. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs