On 17. 01. 19, 20:28, Ben Hutchings wrote: > I've backported fixes for several security issues involving filesystem > validation in f2fs. All of these are already fixed in the later stable > branches. > > I tested with the reproducers where available. I also checked for > regressions with xfstests and didn't find any (but many tests fail with > or without these changes).
Hi, I am thinking why in this patch: > From ec2d979dc3888b6de795344157bb6fe73bbe8e44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> > Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:45:05 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH 18/36] f2fs: fix race condition in between free nid > allocator/initializer > > commit 30a61ddf8117c26ac5b295e1233eaa9629a94ca3 upstream. > you do: > + err = 0; > list_add_tail(&i->list, &nm_i->free_nid_list); > nm_i->fcnt++; > +err_out: > spin_unlock(&nm_i->free_nid_list_lock); > radix_tree_preload_end(); > - return 1; > +err: > + if (err) > + kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i); > + return !err; "!err"? Should it be "err < 0 ? err : 1" instead? thanks, -- js suse labs _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
