From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754954Ab2ADMUU (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:20:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64180 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754091Ab2ADMUP (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:20:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:20:09 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch][regression after 3.1] minixfs: misplaced checks lead to dentry leak Message-ID: <20120104122009.GA21276@zod.bos.redhat.com> References: <20120104105103.GE23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120104105103.GE23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:51:03AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > bitmap size sanity checks should be done *before* allocating ->s_root; > there their cleanup on failure would be correct. As it is, we do iput() > on root inode, but leak the root dentry... > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro > > I realize that we are *very* late in this cycle, but this is (a) obvious and > obviously affecting only minixfs and (b) introduced in this cycle. Ugh. Yes. Good catch. Acked-by: Josh Boyer josh > > diff --git a/fs/minix/inode.c b/fs/minix/inode.c > index c811c19..8e4f5d8 100644 > --- a/fs/minix/inode.c > +++ b/fs/minix/inode.c > @@ -262,23 +262,6 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent) > goto out_no_root; > } > > - ret = -ENOMEM; > - s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode); > - if (!s->s_root) > - goto out_iput; > - > - if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) { > - if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */ > - ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS; > - mark_buffer_dirty(bh); > - } > - if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS)) > - printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, " > - "running fsck is recommended\n"); > - else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS) > - printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, " > - "running fsck is recommended\n"); > - > /* Apparently minix can create filesystems that allocate more blocks for > * the bitmaps than needed. We simply ignore that, but verify it didn't > * create one with not enough blocks and bail out if so. > @@ -299,6 +282,23 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent) > goto out_iput; > } > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode); > + if (!s->s_root) > + goto out_iput; > + > + if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) { > + if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */ > + ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS; > + mark_buffer_dirty(bh); > + } > + if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS)) > + printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, " > + "running fsck is recommended\n"); > + else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS) > + printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, " > + "running fsck is recommended\n"); > + > return 0; > > out_iput: