| Message ID | 20240821061450.3478602-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
Hi, Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]? On 8/21/24 14:14, Lizhi Xu wrote: > When doing cleanup, if flags without OCFS2_BH_READAHEAD, it may trigger > NULL pointer dereference in the following ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate() if > bh is NULL. > > Reported-and-suggested-by: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@suse.com> > Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> > --- > V3 -> V4: Update comments and subject> > fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > index e62c7e1de4eb..8f714406528d 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > @@ -388,7 +388,8 @@ int ocfs2_read_blocks(struct ocfs2_caching_info *ci, u64 block, int nr, > /* Always set the buffer in the cache, even if it was > * a forced read, or read-ahead which hasn't yet > * completed. */ > - ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); > + if (bh) > + ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); > } > ocfs2_metadata_cache_io_unlock(ci); >
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:23:08 +0800, Heming Zhao wrote:
> Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]?
Sorry about your "Reviewed-by" tag, I remove it, if you don't mind, you can
add it by yourself.
In my previous email, I explicitly stated that only this patch should
be sent separately, as the first patch has already been reviewed by two
reviewers. If the second patch is updated with the first patch, I
personally think it is unnecessary.
[patch 1/2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240820094512.2228159-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com/
Lizhi
Hi, On 8/21/24 14:55, Lizhi Xu wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:23:08 +0800, Heming Zhao wrote: >> Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]? > Sorry about your "Reviewed-by" tag, I remove it, if you don't mind, you can > add it by yourself. Good answer! This patch issue was found by me, and I also pointed out how to fix it, then take the time to review your code. But in the end, you removed my "Reviewed-by" tag. > > In my previous email, I explicitly stated that only this patch should > be sent separately, as the first patch has already been reviewed by two > reviewers. If the second patch is updated with the first patch, I > personally think it is unnecessary. > > [patch 1/2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240820094512.2228159-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com/ > > Lizhi It looks like you don't have basis knowledge of how to send patches. I will never reply to or review any of your mails/patches.
On 8/21/24 3:37 PM, heming.zhao@suse.com wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/21/24 14:55, Lizhi Xu wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:23:08 +0800, Heming Zhao wrote: >>> Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]? >> Sorry about your "Reviewed-by" tag, I remove it, if you don't mind, you can >> add it by yourself. > > Good answer! > > This patch issue was found by me, and I also pointed out how to fix it, then take the time > to review your code. But in the end, you removed my "Reviewed-by" tag. > Seems a misunderstanding, take it easy:) Lizhi may think since this is a new version, it needs a new round review. >> >> In my previous email, I explicitly stated that only this patch should >> be sent separately, as the first patch has already been reviewed by two >> reviewers. If the second patch is updated with the first patch, I >> personally think it is unnecessary. >> >> [patch 1/2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240820094512.2228159-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com/ >> >> Lizhi > > It looks like you don't have basis knowledge of how to send patches. > > I will never reply to or review any of your mails/patches.
On 8/21/24 2:14 PM, Lizhi Xu wrote: > When doing cleanup, if flags without OCFS2_BH_READAHEAD, it may trigger > NULL pointer dereference in the following ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate() if > bh is NULL. > > Reported-and-suggested-by: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@suse.com> > Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > V3 -> V4: Update comments and subject > > fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > index e62c7e1de4eb..8f714406528d 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c > @@ -388,7 +388,8 @@ int ocfs2_read_blocks(struct ocfs2_caching_info *ci, u64 block, int nr, > /* Always set the buffer in the cache, even if it was > * a forced read, or read-ahead which hasn't yet > * completed. */ > - ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); > + if (bh) > + ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); > } > ocfs2_metadata_cache_io_unlock(ci); >
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:58:36 +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > On 8/21/24 3:37 PM, heming.zhao@suse.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 8/21/24 14:55, Lizhi Xu wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:23:08 +0800, Heming Zhao wrote: > >>> Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]? > >> Sorry about your "Reviewed-by" tag, I remove it, if you don't mind, you can > >> add it by yourself. > > > > Good answer! > > > > This patch issue was found by me, and I also pointed out how to fix it, then take the time > > to review your code. But in the end, you removed my "Reviewed-by" tag. > > > > Seems a misunderstanding, take it easy:) > Lizhi may think since this is a new version, it needs a new round review. Yeah, the subject and comments have all been changed. Thank you for defending me:) BR, Lizhi
On 8/21/24 17:14, Lizhi Xu wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:58:36 +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: >> On 8/21/24 3:37 PM, heming.zhao@suse.com wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 8/21/24 14:55, Lizhi Xu wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:23:08 +0800, Heming Zhao wrote: >>>>> Where is my "Reviewed-by" tag, and where is [patch 1/2]? >>>> Sorry about your "Reviewed-by" tag, I remove it, if you don't mind, you can >>>> add it by yourself. >>> >>> Good answer! >>> >>> This patch issue was found by me, and I also pointed out how to fix it, then take the time >>> to review your code. But in the end, you removed my "Reviewed-by" tag. >>> >> >> Seems a misunderstanding, take it easy:) >> Lizhi may think since this is a new version, it needs a new round review. > Yeah, the subject and comments have all been changed. > Thank you for defending me:) OK. > > BR, > Lizhi
OK I think I found the correct patches - v3 of [1/2] and v4 of [2/2]. For clarity can we please have a full resend of both patches? And let's please have a [0/n] cover letter which describes the problems which are being addressed and which also briefly describes how they were addressed. Also, it appears that both of these fixes should be backported into -stable kernels. So let's please try to identify when these bugs were introduced and to add a suitable Fixes: to the individual changelogs. Thanks.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:39:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > OK I think I found the correct patches - v3 of [1/2] and v4 of [2/2]. > > For clarity can we please have a full resend of both patches? > > And let's please have a [0/n] cover letter which describes the problems > which are being addressed and which also briefly describes how they > were addressed. > > Also, it appears that both of these fixes should be backported into > -stable kernels. So let's please try to identify when these bugs were > introduced and to add a suitable Fixes: to the individual changelogs. > Again, can we please have a full resend of these two patches with the above issues addressed? Particularly the identification of the Fixes: targets. Thanks.
On 9/2/24 08:54, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:39:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> OK I think I found the correct patches - v3 of [1/2] and v4 of [2/2]. >> >> For clarity can we please have a full resend of both patches? >> >> And let's please have a [0/n] cover letter which describes the problems >> which are being addressed and which also briefly describes how they >> were addressed. >> >> Also, it appears that both of these fixes should be backported into >> -stable kernels. So let's please try to identify when these bugs were >> introduced and to add a suitable Fixes: to the individual changelogs. >> > > Again, can we please have a full resend of these two patches with the > above issues addressed? Particularly the identification of the Fixes: > targets. > > Thanks. Hello Andrew & Joseph, If Lizhi still doesn't respond by this Friday, I will send his latest patch set again. -Heming
On 9/2/24 9:03 AM, Heming Zhao wrote: > On 9/2/24 08:54, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:39:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> OK I think I found the correct patches - v3 of [1/2] and v4 of [2/2]. >>> >>> For clarity can we please have a full resend of both patches? >>> >>> And let's please have a [0/n] cover letter which describes the problems >>> which are being addressed and which also briefly describes how they >>> were addressed. >>> >>> Also, it appears that both of these fixes should be backported into >>> -stable kernels. So let's please try to identify when these bugs were >>> introduced and to add a suitable Fixes: to the individual changelogs. >>> >> >> Again, can we please have a full resend of these two patches with the >> above issues addressed? Particularly the identification of the Fixes: >> targets. >> >> Thanks. > > Hello Andrew & Joseph, > > If Lizhi still doesn't respond by this Friday, I will send his latest patch set again. > I'll do that, thanks. Joseph
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 10:20:38 +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: >On 9/2/24 9:03 AM, Heming Zhao wrote: >> On 9/2/24 08:54, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:39:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> OK I think I found the correct patches - v3 of [1/2] and v4 of [2/2]. >>>> >>>> For clarity can we please have a full resend of both patches? >>>> >>>> And let's please have a [0/n] cover letter which describes the problems >>>> which are being addressed and which also briefly describes how they >>>> were addressed. >>>> >>>> Also, it appears that both of these fixes should be backported into >>>> -stable kernels. So let's please try to identify when these bugs were >>>> introduced and to add a suitable Fixes: to the individual changelogs. >>>> >>> >>> Again, can we please have a full resend of these two patches with the >>> above issues addressed? Particularly the identification of the Fixes: >>> targets. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Hello Andrew & Joseph, >> >> If Lizhi still doesn't respond by this Friday, I will send his latest patch set again. >> >I'll do that, thanks. Sorry, I didn't notice these emails. Thanks for your help. BR, Lizhi
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c index e62c7e1de4eb..8f714406528d 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c +++ b/fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c @@ -388,7 +388,8 @@ int ocfs2_read_blocks(struct ocfs2_caching_info *ci, u64 block, int nr, /* Always set the buffer in the cache, even if it was * a forced read, or read-ahead which hasn't yet * completed. */ - ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); + if (bh) + ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate(ci, bh); } ocfs2_metadata_cache_io_unlock(ci);
When doing cleanup, if flags without OCFS2_BH_READAHEAD, it may trigger NULL pointer dereference in the following ocfs2_set_buffer_uptodate() if bh is NULL. Reported-and-suggested-by: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> --- V3 -> V4: Update comments and subject fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)