On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 3:03 PM Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The return value of link_free_space(ctl, info) is checked out-sync. Only one branch of an if statement checks this return value after WARN_ON(ret).
>
> Since this path pair is similar in semantic, there might be a missing check bug.
>
> Fix this by simply adding a check on ret.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> index 3283da419200..acbb3a59d344 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> @@ -2437,6 +2437,8 @@ int btrfs_remove_free_space(struct btrfs_block_group *block_group,
> if (info->bytes) {
> ret = link_free_space(ctl, info);
> WARN_ON(ret);
> + if (ret)
I think the WARN_ON() can go away as well.
The only possible error is -EEXIST, coming from tree_insert_offset().
When that happens tree_insert_offset() already emits a warning.
Also, the free space entry needs to be freed, otherwise we leak
memory. So it should be something like this:
if (ret) {
kmem_cache_free(btrfs_free_space_cachep, info);
goto out_unlock;
}
Further the subject should be prefixed with "btrfs: " and not "fs: ",
since this is a btrfs specific patch.
Something like the following for example:
"btrfs: add missing error handling when removing free space"
Thanks.
> + goto out_lock;
> } else {
> kmem_cache_free(btrfs_free_space_cachep, info);
> }
> --
> 2.21.0 (Apple Git-122)
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”
