Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix a NULL pointer dereference

From: Nikolay Borisov
Date: Thu Mar 14 2019 - 04:03:30 EST




On 14.03.19 Ð. 10:02 Ñ., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/3/14 äå3:54, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14.03.19 Ð. 9:50 Ñ., Kangjie Lu wrote:
>>> btrfs_lookup_block_group may fail and return NULL. The fix goes
>>> to out when it fails to avoid NULL pointer dereference.
>>
>> Actually no, in this case btrfs_lookup_block_group must never fail
>> because if we have an allocated eb then it must have been allocated from
>> a bg.
>
> Yep, that's the normal case.
>
> However I'm wondering if it's possible to get a bad eb which is cached.
>
> Then we could hit such situation.
>
> So I still believe being safe here still makes sense, especially who
> knows future fuzzed image will be.

Then I'd rather have ASSERT(cache)

>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> index 994f0cc41799..b1e7985bcb9d 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> @@ -7303,6 +7303,8 @@ void btrfs_free_tree_block(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>>
>>> pin = 0;
>>> cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, buf->start);
>>> + if (!cache)
>>> + goto out;
>>>
>>> if (btrfs_header_flag(buf, BTRFS_HEADER_FLAG_WRITTEN)) {
>>> pin_down_extent(fs_info, cache, buf->start,
>>>
>