| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix buffer use after free on IO error |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:44:17 -0700 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5331BF53.6000300@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <532CFA12.4040104@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140325125754.GA18691@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140325131705.GB25392@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5331A930.9030402@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140325172508.GA4446@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5331BF53.6000300@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: > so only _xfs_buf_ioend *might* pass something other than 0, and: > > File Function Line > 0 xfs_buf.c xfs_buf_bio_end_io 1197 _xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 1); > 1 xfs_buf.c xfs_buf_iorequest 1377 _xfs_buf_ioend(bp, bp->b_error ? 0 : 1); > > At least up until now that was always called with "1" Right, _was_. But that changes to one always passing 1, and one passing 0 or one with your patch. Or one passing always 1 and one always passing 0 with the suggestion from Brian and me. Either way we'd still have versions passing 1. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix buffer use after free on IO error, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix buffer use after free on IO error, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix buffer use after free on IO error, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix buffer use after free on IO error, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |