On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 13:22 +0100, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 19:00 -0500, Chaitanya Patti wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > In the function nfs_lookup in nfs/dir.c , the following line (line # 926): > > > > error = nfs_reval_fsid(nd->mnt, dir, &fhandle, &fattr); > > > > uses `nd' without having checked if it is NULL. > > > > Is this correct? > > It is quite intentional and correct. Calling ->lookup() without correct > intent information is a bug. I'd agree with you (And even told the person the problem up front) except it's not oopsing on a lack of intent information, it's oopsing because nd is null and therefore can not access nd->mnt. i.e. Let say I couldn't reconstruct nd perfectly (due to not knowing vfsmnt information), I could possible construct a fake nd with the proper intent information (i.e. very likely no intent information to be passed) and it would still oops. So my question, is changing nfs_reval_fsid() from static inline int nfs_reval_fsid(struct vfsmount *mnt...) that calls __nfs_revalidate_inode(...., mnt->mnt_root->d_inode); and is called as error = nfs_reval_fsid(nd->mnt...) by nfs_lookup() to static inline int nfs_reval_fsid(struct dentry * dentry...) that calls __nfs_revalidate_inode(server, dentry->d_inode); and is called as error = nfs_reval_fsid(dentry->d_sb->s_root...) by nfs_lookup() incorrect? now, it could be me missing the boat here, I wouldn't be surprised. thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
