On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:09:04AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 03:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >We free "node" and then dereference it in the panic message on the next
> >line. I considered moving the kfree() after the panic given that panic
> >can return under certain configurations, but in the end I decided it
> >doesn't matter if we leak a bit after a panic.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >diff --git a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> >index 790f492..c50d80a 100644
> >--- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> >+++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> >@@ -1239,7 +1239,6 @@ static int __must_check __add_reloc_root(struct btrfs_root *root)
> > node->bytenr, &node->rb_node);
> > spin_unlock(&rc->reloc_root_tree.lock);
> > if (rb_node) {
> >- kfree(node);
> > btrfs_panic(root->fs_info, -EEXIST, "Duplicate root found "
> > "for start=%llu while inserting into relocation "
> > "tree\n", node->bytenr);
>
> Except btrfs_panic can not panic the box if it's mounted to not
> panic on errors, so we still need to do the kfree afterwards.
> Thanks,
Right. I mentioned that in my change log, but I figured a one time
memory leak was the least of our concerns in that case. I will
resend. This should probably return -EEXIST here as well yes?
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
