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

[Qu Wenruo]

On 2019/3/14 äå4:03, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> 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)

Isn't assert() a bad idea for production build without assert() support?

Thanks,
Qu

> 
>>
>> 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,
>>>>
>>