On 2017/4/4 1:40, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/01, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Ping,
>>
>> Any problem here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On 2017/3/28 9:17, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2017/3/28 7:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>> On 03/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> In f2fs_submit_discard_endio, we will wake up waiter before setting
>>>>> discard command states, so waiter may use incorrect states. Change
>>>>> the order between complete() and states setting to fix this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> index 57a81f9c8c14..9f9542c9fe47 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> @@ -717,9 +717,9 @@ static void f2fs_submit_discard_endio(struct bio *bio)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct discard_cmd *dc = (struct discard_cmd *)bio->bi_private;
>>>>>
>>>>> - complete(&dc->wait);
>>>>> dc->error = bio->bi_error;
>>>>> dc->state = D_DONE;
>>>>> + complete(&dc->wait);
>>>>
>>>> If we set D_DONE first, the object can be released by
>>>> __remove_discard_cmd()?
>
> What I mean was about use-after-free.
I updated the patch, could you help to review it?
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
>>>
>>> Yes, I think so.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> bio_put(bio);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.8.2.295.g3f1c1d0
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>
> .
>
