Re: file locking fix for 3.2
From: Al Viro
Date: Sat Dec 24 2011 - 17:55:35 EST
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:50:12PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> locks: fix null dereference on lease-break failure path
> Commit 778fc546f749c588aa2f6cd50215d2715c374252 "locks: fix tracking of
> inprogress lease breaks" introduced a null dereference on failure to
> allocate memory.
> This means an open (without O_NONBLOCK set) on a file with a lease
> applied (generally only done when Samba or nfsd (with v4) is running)
> could crash if a kmalloc() fails.
NULL? AFAICS, lease_alloc() returns ERR_PTR() on failure... I really
don't like the look of that code, TBH - at the very least it needs to
be commented a lot. E.g. the rules for calling or not calling ->lm_break()
are really not obvious - AFAICS, we do that if
i_have_this_lease || (mode & O_NONBLOCK)
is true *or* if allocation has succeeded. The former condition is what'll
end up with -EWOULDBLOCK; I can understand not wanting to return that in
preference to -ENOMEM, but... Do we want to skip ->lm_break() stuff only
in case of allocation failures that won't be overridden by -EWOULDBLOCK?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/