Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> 于2023年2月2日周四 22:18写道：
>
>
>
> > 2023年2月2日 22:11，Zheng Hacker <hackerzheng666@xxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >
> > Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> 于2023年2月2日周四 20:22写道：
> >
> >> Hmm, there should be something to be fixed, but not the non-exist NULL dereference.
> >>
> >> If you look inside btree_node_alloc_replacement(), you may find __bch_btree_node_alloc() which does the real work indeed. And yes, I would suggest you to improve a bit inside __bch_btree_node_alloc().
> >>
> >> 1088 struct btree *__bch_btree_node_alloc(struct cache_set *c, struct btree_op *op,
> >> [snipped]
> >> 1093 struct btree *b = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> >> 1094
> >> 1095 mutex_lock(&c->bucket_lock);
> >> 1096 retry:
> >> 1097 if (__bch_bucket_alloc_set(c, RESERVE_BTREE, &k.key, wait))
> >> 1098 goto err;
> >> [snipped]
> >> 1102
> >> 1103 b = mca_alloc(c, op, &k.key, level);
> >> 1104 if (IS_ERR(b))
> >> 1105 goto err_free;
> >> 1106
> >> 1107 if (!b) {
> >> 1108 cache_bug(c,
> >> 1109 "Tried to allocate bucket that was in btree cache");
> >> 1110 goto retry;
> >> 1111 }
> >> 1112
> >>
> >> From the above code, at line 1097 if __bch_bucket_alloc_set() returns non-zero value, the code will jump to label err: and returns ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN). But if the code fails at line 1103 and b is set to NULL, at line 1110 the code will jump back to label retry: and calls __bch_bucket_alloc_set() again. If the second time __bch_bucket_alloc_set() returns non-zero value and the code jumps to label err:, a NULL pointer other than ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN) will be returned. This inconsistent return value on same location at line 1097 seems incorrect, where ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN) should be returned IMHO.
> >>
> >> Therefore I feel that “b = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN)” should be moved to the location after label retry:, then btree_node_alloc_replacement() will only return error code, and no NULL pointer returned.
> >>
> >> After this change, all following IS_ERR_OR_NULL() checks to btree_node_alloc_replacement() are unnecessary and IS_ERR() just enough, because no NULL will be returned.
> >>
> >> This is a nice catch. I’d like to have it to be fixed. I do appreciate if you want to compose two patches for the fix. Otherwise I can handle it myself.
> >>
> > Hi Coly,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply and detailed explaination! As you explain, I
> > found __bch_btree_node_alloc may return NULL in some situation. So I
> > add some more check in upper code.
> > Your suggestion is more constructive. It'll make the function more
> > clear for other developer. I'd like to help with the patch. And you
> > have kindly pointed the right way to fix.
> > May I merge fix it in one patch with the commit msg "refactor
> > __bch_btree_node_alloc to avoid poential NULL dereference"? Because I
> > think if __bch_btree_node_alloc returns
> > NULL to bch_btree_node_alloc, the function
> > btree_node_alloc_replacement will strill return NULL to n1 in
> > btree_split. I think the possibility is low, if it's not proper,
> > please feel free
> > to let me know.
>
> This is not a refactor indeed, just a simple fix to __bch_btree_node_alloc() to make the failure behavior of calling __bch_bucket_alloc_set() at line 1097 to be consistent. A.K.A always returning ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN) when it returns failure.
>
> Another optional patch is to change the unnecessary IS_ERR_OR_NULL() to IS_ERR() in proper locations, because after the first fix, NULL won’t be returned indeed. And extra code comments on why IS_ERR() is sufficient might be preferred IMHO.
>
Got it! Will do right now. Thanks agagin for your clear description
about the fix.
Thanks,
Zheng Wang
