public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>
Subject: [patch][regression after 3.1] minixfs: misplaced checks lead to dentry leak
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:51:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120104105103.GE23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)

bitmap size sanity checks should be done *before* allocating ->s_root;
there their cleanup on failure would be correct.  As it is, we do iput()
on root inode, but leak the root dentry...

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

I realize that we are *very* late in this cycle, but this is (a) obvious and
obviously affecting only minixfs and (b) introduced in this cycle.

diff --git a/fs/minix/inode.c b/fs/minix/inode.c
index c811c19..8e4f5d8 100644
--- a/fs/minix/inode.c
+++ b/fs/minix/inode.c
@@ -262,23 +262,6 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
 		goto out_no_root;
 	}
 
-	ret = -ENOMEM;
-	s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode);
-	if (!s->s_root)
-		goto out_iput;
-
-	if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
-		if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */
-			ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS;
-		mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
-	}
-	if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS))
-		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, "
-			"running fsck is recommended\n");
- 	else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS)
-		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, "
-			"running fsck is recommended\n");
-
 	/* Apparently minix can create filesystems that allocate more blocks for
 	 * the bitmaps than needed.  We simply ignore that, but verify it didn't
 	 * create one with not enough blocks and bail out if so.
@@ -299,6 +282,23 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
 		goto out_iput;
 	}
 
+	ret = -ENOMEM;
+	s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode);
+	if (!s->s_root)
+		goto out_iput;
+
+	if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
+		if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */
+			ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS;
+		mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
+	}
+	if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS))
+		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, "
+			"running fsck is recommended\n");
+ 	else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS)
+		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, "
+			"running fsck is recommended\n");
+
 	return 0;
 
 out_iput:

             reply	other threads:[~2012-01-04 10:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-04 10:51 Al Viro [this message]
2012-01-04 12:20 ` [patch][regression after 3.1] minixfs: misplaced checks lead to dentry leak Josh Boyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120104105103.GE23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox