Just ignore this patch, i have merge the correct modification
of this patch to the [patch V2] fix double free in the iterate_extent_inodes().
Thanks,
Wang
> On 03/30/13 12:55, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> On 03/29/13 14:42, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Just remove the unnecessary check and assignment.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> index 3ca413bb..e102b48 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> @@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ int iterate_extent_inodes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> break;
>>>> ULIST_ITER_INIT(&root_uiter);
>>>> - while (!ret && (root_node = ulist_next(roots, &root_uiter))) {
>>>> + while ((root_node = ulist_next(roots, &root_uiter))) {
>>>
>>> It doesn't look unnecessary at all to me. ret is set in the loop and
>>> only checked in the while condition.
>>>
>>>> pr_debug("root %llu references leaf %llu, data list "
>>>> "%#llx\n", root_node->val, ref_node->val,
>>>> (long long)ref_node->aux);
>>>> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ int iterate_extent_inodes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> iterate, ctx);
>>>> }
>>>> ulist_free(roots);
>>>> - roots = NULL;
>>>
>>> roots gets freed again later on. If you don't set it to NULL, it will
>>> result in a double free.
>>
>> Maybe you mean this?
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=136456233929528&w=2
>> ulist_free() here is unnecessary and may cause a double free…
>> So we don't need to set it to NULL again..
>
> Yeah, I haven't seen your other patch.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Arne
>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> free_leaf_list(refs);
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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
