On 3/13/20 1:38 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:18:51PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
If we have an error while processing the reloc roots we could leak roots
that were added to rc->reloc_roots before we hit the error. We could
have also not removed the reloct tree mapping from our rb_tree, so clean
up any remaining nodes in the reloc root rb_tree.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
index c496f8ed8c7e..721d049ff2b5 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
@@ -4387,6 +4387,20 @@ static struct reloc_control *alloc_reloc_control(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
return rc;
}
+static void free_reloc_control(struct reloc_control *rc)
+{
+ struct mapping_node *node, *tmp;
+
+ free_reloc_roots(&rc->reloc_roots);
+ rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(node, tmp,
+ &rc->reloc_root_tree.rb_root,
+ rb_node) {
+ rb_erase(&node->rb_node, &rc->reloc_root_tree.rb_root);
The rb_erase is not needed here, the postorder traversal just goes over
all nodes and allows to free the containing structures together with the
rb_node. Dangling pointers are not an issue.
I had not seen your reply when I replied to the v2 patch but if you
think the rb_erase is needed, I don't see why.
Because I looked at it and thought it was needed and was confused and had to go
look when you replied when you said it wasn't. So it's needed for clarity sake ;).
Josef
