Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [BUG] fs: gfs2: possible null-pointer
 dereferences in gfs2_rgrp_bh_get()
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, rpeterso@redhat.com,
        agruenba@redhat.com
Cc:     cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <8d270882-54da-365e-1be7-a291a5178b1e@gmail.com>
From:   Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <cd7c0bb4-53d2-8a67-0719-c26d043a31fc@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:04:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8d270882-54da-365e-1be7-a291a5178b1e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 24/07/2019 09:50, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> In gfs2_rgrp_bh_get, there is an if statement on line 1191 to check 
> whether "rgd->rd_bits[0].bi_bh" is NULL.

That is how we detect whether the rgrp has already been read in, so the 
function is skipped in the case that we've already read in the rgrp.


> When "rgd->rd_bits[0].bi_bh" is NULL, it is used on line 1216:
>     gfs2_rgrp_in(rgd, (rgd->rd_bits[0].bi_bh)->b_data);

No it isn't. See line 1196 where bi_bh is set, and where we also bail 
out (line 1198) in case it has not been set.


> and on line 1225:
>     gfs2_rgrp_ondisk2lvb(..., rgd->rd_bits[0].bi_bh->b_data);
> and on line 1228:
>     if (!gfs2_rgrp_lvb_valid(rgd))
>
> Note that in gfs2_rgrp_lvb_valid(rgd), there is a statement on line 1114:
>     struct gfs2_rgrp *str = (struct gfs2_rgrp 
> *)rgd->rd_bits[0].bi_bh->b_data;
>
> Thus, possible null-pointer dereferences may occur.
>
> These bugs are found by a static analysis tool STCheck written by us.
> I do not know how to correctly fix these bugs, so I only report bugs.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jia-Ju Bai
>
So I'm not seeing how there can be a NULL deref in those later lines. I 
think this is another false positive,

Steve.