On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 16:10 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 13:49 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Thanks for the review Alex.
> >
> > See below for comments.
> >
> > On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 14:38 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 17:32 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > > Remove the definitions and usage of the macros XFS_BUF_ERROR,
>
> . . .
>
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/quota/xfs_dquot.c b/fs/xfs/quota/xfs_dquot.c
> > > > index 837f311..e7e35fb 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/quota/xfs_dquot.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/quota/xfs_dquot.c
> > > > @@ -403,7 +403,8 @@ xfs_qm_dqalloc(
> > > > dqp->q_blkno,
> > > > mp->m_quotainfo->qi_dqchunklen,
> > > > 0);
> > > > - if (!bp || (error = XFS_BUF_GETERROR(bp)))
> > > > + error = xfs_buf_geterror(bp);
> > > > + if (error)
> > > > goto error1;
> > > > /*
> > > > * Make a chunk of dquots out of this buffer and log
> > >
> > > This results in behavior that differs from before.
> > > Previously, error would have value 0 following
> > > the call to xfs_trans_get_buf() here, meaning that
> > > (at error1:) xfs_qm_dqalloc() would return 0 in
> > > this case. Now it will return ENOMEM.
> > >
> > > I think what you have done may be correct, but
> > > since the change does more than the simple
> > > macro transformation you intend, this change
> > > should be done in a separate commit.
> > >
> > > So either:
> > > - post a new patch (preferably before this
> > > whole series) that makes this code return
> > > ENOMEM if xfs_trans_get_buf() returns a
> > > null pointer, then update this patch accordingly;
> >
> > Will it this way and resent the patch
> > xfs_buf_geterror
>
> I don't grok that "sentence" and I'm not sure whether
> you are referring to the one above or below.
>
Sorry, something got eaten up...
I meant to say, "will do it this way and resend the patch".
> > > - or just change this patch to return 0 instead
> > > of ENOMEM if xfs_trans_get_buf() returns a
> > > null pointer.
> > >
> > > . . .
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
> > > > index 88d1214..97daa35 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
> > > > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ xfs_readlink_bmap(
> > > >
> > > > bp = xfs_buf_read(mp->m_ddev_targp, d, BTOBB(byte_cnt),
> > > > XBF_LOCK | XBF_MAPPED | XBF_DONT_BLOCK);
> > >
> > > xfs_buf_read() can return NULL here, so to match
> > > the existing behavior you should call xfs_buf_geterror()
> > > here.
> > >
> > > > - error = XFS_BUF_GETERROR(bp);
> > > > + error = bp->b_error;
> > > > if (error) {
> > > > xfs_ioerror_alert("xfs_readlink",
> > > > ip->i_mount, bp, XFS_BUF_ADDR(bp));
> >
> > I did the change consciously. If bp were NULL, error would have been set
> > to ENOMEM, and xfs_ioerror_alert() and xfs_buf_relse(), would have
> > accessed bp and tripped anyways. So, I felt using the indirection
> > (xfs_buf_geterror()) is not adding any value, hence set error by
> > directly accessing b_error.
>
> But you are dereferencing a possibly null pointer in the
> code you added. Yes, the code that was already there
> should not dereference it either, but that's no excuse
> for you to do it. (And fix the other code while you're
> there, or make a note to get it fixed later.)
>
> The reason it's important here is that the value of error
> gets passed back to the caller, and although I didn't
> go very far back to see what effect it has, a quick look
> showed that it might lead to different behavior. As I
> said, it might be *correct* behavior, but in any case it's
> different, so it belongs in its own commit.
>
> > There are more place like these.
>
> I noticed you doing this sort of thing in a bunch of other
> spots in your patch, and in all of them they seemed to
> follow a test that ensured the buffer pointer was non-null
> (or it was implicit, because some *prior* dereference of
> the pointer would have been a problem) therefore simply
> checking bp->b_error was a fine replacement.
>
> But in this one spot, it's a bit different, so I called
> attention to it.
>
> If you are convinced I'm mistaken and this will produce
> results identical to before, say so and I'll take a
> closer look.
>
> > What do you think of this option
> >
> > Leave this as is (with b_error), and send another patch to check for bp
> > after xfs_buf_read() in all places (if you want this option, what do you
> > think error should be set to, I see both EIO and ENOMEM used. I think it
> > should be the same always).
> >
> > If you don't like that option I can revert to xfs_buf_geterror() too.
>
> I think using xfs_buf_geterror() is the easiest thing
> to do right now. Changing it such that xfs_readlink_bmap()
> returns ENOMEM in the event xfs_buf_read() here returns a null
> pointer sounds like a reasonable thing to do, but do it in
> a separate patch that focuses on that change and why it's
> correct. And (despite what I said earlier) I guess do it
> *after* we've got this series in. I'm about ready to get
> it committed once you get it updated.
I will do it the way you suggested and send a separate patch fixing the
incorrect dereferences.
Thanks
chandra
>
> -Alex
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
