On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:15:36AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:13:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:06:53AM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> > > static void cifs_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> > > {
> > > - struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > > + struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb;
> > > struct cifsTconInfo *tcon;
> > >
> > > - if (cifs_sb == NULL)
> > > + lock_kernel();
> > > + cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > > +
> > > + if (cifs_sb == NULL) {
> > > + unlock_kernel();
> > > return;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > tcon = cifs_sb->tcon;
> > > - if (tcon == NULL)
> > > + if (tcon == NULL) {
> > > + unlock_kernel();
> > > return;
> > > + }
> >
> > AFAICS, both CIFS_SB(sb) and ->tcon are assign-once, so lock_kernel() should
> > really go here (if it can't be removed completely, of course, but that's up
> > to CIFS folks). Applied with such modification.
>
> PS: I suspect that checks for NULL are actually "what if kernel memory got
> corrupted", but I'm too lazy to verify that at the moment; again, up to
> CIFS folks.
NULL checks are superflous here, but that should be a separate patch.
--
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
