On 11/15/23 21:25, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:17 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/15/23 20:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:35 AM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/14/23 23:31, Wenchao Hao wrote:
This issue is reported by smatch, get_quota_realm() might return
ERR_PTR, so we should using IS_ERR_OR_NULL here to check the return
value.
Signed-off-by: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ceph/quota.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
index 9d36c3532de1..c4b2929c6a83 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ bool ceph_quota_update_statfs(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc, struct kstatfs *buf)
realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, d_inode(fsc->sb->s_root),
QUOTA_GET_MAX_BYTES, true);
up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
- if (!realm)
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(realm))
return false;
spin_lock(&realm->inodes_with_caps_lock);
Good catch.
Reviewed-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx>
We should CC the stable mail list.
Hi Xiubo,
What exactly is being fixed here? get_quota_realm() is called with
retry=true, which means that no errors can be returned -- EAGAIN, the
only error that get_quota_realm() can otherwise generate, would be
handled internally by retrying.
Yeah, that's true.
Am I missing something that makes this qualify for stable?
Actually it's just for the smatch check for now.
IMO we shouldn't depend on the 'retry', just potentially for new changes
in future could return a ERR_PTR and cause potential bugs.
At present, ceph_quota_is_same_realm() also depends on it -- note how
old_realm isn't checked for errors at all and new_realm is only checked
for EAGAIN there.
If that's not worth to make it for stable, let's remove it.
Yes, let's remove it. Please update the commit message as well, so
that it's clear that this is squashing a static checker warning and
doesn't actually fix any immediate bug.
WenChao,
Could update the commit comment and send the V2 ?
Thanks
- Xiubo
Thanks,
Ilya
