| Message ID | 53BADA39.3020504@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 6104676..6cb82f6 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -1680,11 +1680,11 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char *device_path) if (device->bdev == root->fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev) root->fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev = next_device->bdev; - if (device->bdev) + if (device->bdev) { device->fs_devices->open_devices--; - - /* remove sysfs entry */ - btrfs_kobj_rm_device(root->fs_info, device); + /* remove sysfs entry */ + btrfs_kobj_rm_device(root->fs_info, device); + } call_rcu(&device->rcu, free_device);
commit 99994cd btrfs: dev delete should remove sysfs entry added a btrfs_kobj_rm_device, which dereferences device->bdev... right after we check whether device->bdev might be NULL. I don't honestly know if it's possible to have a NULL device->bdev here, but assuming that it is (given the test), we need to move the kobject removal to be under that test. (Coverity spotted this) Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> --- If it's not possible for bdev to be null, then the test should just be removed, but that's above my current btrfs pay grade. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html