On Wed 25-09-19 23:24:08, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:39:03PM -0500, Navid Emamdoost wrote:
> > In udf_new_inode if either udf_new_block or insert_inode_locked fials
> > the allocated memory for iinfo->i_ext.i_data should be released.
>
> "... because of such-and-such reasons" part appears to be missing.
> Why should it be released there?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdo...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > fs/udf/ialloc.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/udf/ialloc.c b/fs/udf/ialloc.c
> > index 0adb40718a5d..b8ab3acab6b6 100644
> > --- a/fs/udf/ialloc.c
> > +++ b/fs/udf/ialloc.c
> > @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ struct inode *udf_new_inode(struct inode *dir, umode_t
> > mode)
> > dinfo->i_location.partitionReferenceNum,
> > start, &err);
> > if (err) {
> > + kfree(iinfo->i_ext.i_data);
> > iput(inode);
> > return ERR_PTR(err);
> > }
>
> Have you tested that? Because it has all earmarks of double-free;
> normal eviction pathway ought to free the damn thing. <greps around
> a bit>
>
> Mind explaining what's to stop ->evict_inode (== udf_evict_inode) from
> hitting
> kfree(iinfo->i_ext.i_data);
> considering that this call of kfree() appears to be unconditional there?
Exactly. udf_evict_inode() is responsible for freeing iinfo->i_ext.i_data
so the patch would result in double free.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
