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;
Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:06:09 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, clm@fb.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Fix a possible null-pointer dereference in
 insert_inline_extent()
Message-ID: <20190726150609.GE2868@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>,
        Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, clm@fb.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190724021132.27378-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
 <df4b5d21-0983-3ca2-44de-ea9f1616df7f@gmx.com>
 <800ae777-928f-2969-d4dd-6f358a039e48@gmail.com>
 <1b708c0d-8ea1-3898-0340-9cbce1fc2602@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1b708c0d-8ea1-3898-0340-9cbce1fc2602@gmx.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:57:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2019/7/24 上午10:33, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > On 2019/7/24 10:21, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> On 2019/7/24 上午10:11, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> >>> In insert_inline_extent(), there is an if statement on line 181 to check
> >>> whether compressed_pages is NULL:
> >>>      if (compressed_size && compressed_pages)
> >>>
> >>> When compressed_pages is NULL, compressed_pages is used on line 215:
> >>>      cpage = compressed_pages[i];
> >>>
> >>> Thus, a possible null-pointer dereference may occur.
> >>>
> >>> To fix this possible bug, compressed_pages is checked on line 214.
> >> This can only be hit with compressed_size > 0 and compressed_pages !=
> >> NULL.
> >>
> >> It would be better to have an extra ASSERT() to warn developers about
> >> the impossible case.
> > 
> > Thanks for the reply :)
> > So I should add ASSERT(compressed_size > 0 & compressed_pages) at the
> > beginning of the function, and remove "if (compressed_size &&
> > compressed_pages)"?
> 
> My suggestion is, ASSERT((compressed_size >0 && compressed_pages) ||
> (compressed_size == 0 && !compressed_pages))
> 
> And keeps the original checks.
> 
> Anyway, just a suggestion.

Agreed, the assertion would be good, covering both cases in one
statement at the beginning of the function.