On 2023/3/3 17:45, Yue Hu wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:52:18 +0900
Noboru Asai <[email protected]> wrote:
The variable 'vi->xattr_shared_count' could be ZERO.
Signed-off-by: Noboru Asai <[email protected]>
---
fs/erofs/xattr.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/erofs/xattr.c b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 60729b1220b6..5164813a693b 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
@@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ static int init_inode_xattrs(struct inode *inode)
ih = (struct erofs_xattr_ibody_header *)(it.kaddr + it.ofs);
vi->xattr_shared_count = ih->h_shared_count;
+ if (!vi->xattr_shared_count)
+ goto out_unlock;
Questions: ret = 0? no need to erofs_put_metabuf?
I think we can keep current since kmalloc_array() will check whether the
size(->xattr_shared_count) is zero size or not. rt?
Personally I'd like to avoid 0-sized kmalloc, but you're right,
we have to do erofs_put_metabuf() here and it needs to be fixed.
vi->xattr_shared_xattrs = kmalloc_array(vi->xattr_shared_count,
sizeof(uint), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!vi->xattr_shared_xattrs) {
