Hi,
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 6:56 AM Wang Ming <mac...@vivo.com> wrote:
>
> newcon -> sock is NULL but dereferenced.
> First check newcon. Whether sock is a null pointer.
> If so, the subsequent operations are skipped.
> If it is not empty, perform subsequent operations.
>
did you experience some null pointer dereference? If so, on which kernel was it?
> Signed-off-by: Wang Ming <mac...@vivo.com>
> ---
> fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
> index 9f14ea9f6..ea18b9478 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
> @@ -1081,9 +1081,12 @@ static int accept_from_sock(void)
> add_sock(newsock, newcon);
>
Here in add_sock() we assign newcon->sock = newsock. It cannot fail
and newsock cannot be null, so holding the newcon->sock_lock write
protected _should_ be safe that others don't manipulate newcon->sock.
It should, that's why I am asking if you experienced some issue here?
> /* check if we receved something while adding */
> - lock_sock(newcon->sock->sk);
> - lowcomms_queue_rwork(newcon);
> - release_sock(newcon->sock->sk);
see above, newcon->sock should always be set at this point.
> + if (newcon->sock) {
> + lock_sock(newcon->sock->sk);
> + lowcomms_queue_rwork(newcon);
> + release_sock(newcon->sock->sk);
> + }
> +
> }
> up_write(&newcon->sock_lock);
> srcu_read_unlock(&connections_srcu, idx);
- Alex
