Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:39:34 +0200
From:   Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ext4: Handle add_system_zone() failure in
 ext4_setup_system_zone()
Message-ID: <20200727123934.ws2wbvphbbbu6ujr@work>
References: <20200727114429.1478-1-jack@suse.cz>
 <20200727114429.1478-6-jack@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200727114429.1478-6-jack@suse.cz>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 01:44:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> There's one place that fails to handle error from add_system_zone() call
> and thus we can fail to protect superblock and group-descriptor blocks
> properly in case of ENOMEM. Fix it.

Looks good, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>

> 
> Reported-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/block_validity.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
> index 9c40214f31f9..2d008c1b58f2 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
> @@ -235,10 +235,13 @@ int ext4_setup_system_zone(struct super_block *sb)
>  	for (i=0; i < ngroups; i++) {
>  		cond_resched();
>  		if (ext4_bg_has_super(sb, i) &&
> -		    ((i < 5) || ((i % flex_size) == 0)))
> -			add_system_zone(system_blks,
> +		    ((i < 5) || ((i % flex_size) == 0))) {
> +			ret = add_system_zone(system_blks,
>  					ext4_group_first_block_no(sb, i),
>  					ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, i) + 1, 0);
> +			if (ret)
> +				goto err;
> +		}
>  		gdp = ext4_get_group_desc(sb, i, NULL);
>  		ret = add_system_zone(system_blks,
>  				ext4_block_bitmap(sb, gdp), 1, 0);
> -- 
> 2.16.4
>