…
> +++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c
> @@ -1077,10 +1077,14 @@ static int exfat_rename_file(struct inode *inode,
> struct exfat_chain *p_dir,
>
> epold = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, oldentry + 1, &old_bh,
> §or_old);
> + if (!epold)
> + ret
…
> +++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c
> @@ -1077,10 +1077,14 @@ static int exfat_rename_file(struct inode *inode,
> struct exfat_chain *p_dir,
>
> epold = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, oldentry + 1, &old_bh,
> §or_old);
> + if (!epold)
> + ret
> If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release "old_bh"
> before returning. There
> is a similar bug in exfat_move_file().
>
> Fixes: 5f2aa075070c ("exfat: add inode operations")
> Reported-by: Markus Elfring
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
Applied. Thanks!
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:56:26PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release
> >>> "old_bh" before returning. There is a similar bug in exfat_move_file().
> >>
> >> Would you like to convert any information from this change description
>
>>> If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release
>>> "old_bh" before returning. There is a similar bug in exfat_move_file().
>>
>> Would you like to convert any information from this change description
>> into an imperative wording?
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ke
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:12:46PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release
> > "old_bh" before returning. There is a similar bug in exfat_move_file().
>
> Would you like to convert any information from this change description
> into an
> If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release
> "old_bh" before returning. There is a similar bug in exfat_move_file().
Would you like to convert any information from this change description
into an imperative wording?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torval
7 matches
Mail list logo