On 01/21/2013 10:56 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 04:04:06PM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>From: Nageswara R Sastry<nasas...@in.ibm.com>
>
>Check for the return value of 'open_ctree()' before dereferencing it.
>
>--- a/btrfs-image.c
>+++ b/btrfs-image.c
>@@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ static int create_metadump(const char *input, FILE *out,
int num_threads,
> int ret;
>
> root = open_ctree(input, 0, 0);
>+ BUG_ON(!root);
Bug_on is not the right fix here, I prefer a more extensive fix
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/15305
which prints a message and exits.
The above patch is 1 of 4 that were submitted. Should those other three
be included also. I did a couple of spot checks and the changes were
not picked up in another patch.
A couple of things bother me about these 4 patches. First of all,
nobody commented about them on this mailing list --- either good or
bad. Second, if the descriptions and code is at all accurate, why were
these patches not included in the "flury" of patches applied later in
the year to bring btrfs-progs more up-to-date?
These patches may "look good" but almost none of the changes will apply
to "integration-20130121" or "91d9eec".
So some effort will be needed to refit/rebase these patches. I am
willing to do that if there is some agreement that this should be done.
Of the 4 patches, the one addressing segfaults is the most serious. The
others deal with simple problems including one which changes spaces to
tab characters.
Gene
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
