* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Isn't it funny that a commit trying to fix use-after-free introduced its
> own use-after-free?
>
> fuse_reply_err() frees the request so we cannot call lo_data(req)
> afterwards.
>
> Fixes: a5081fc6fc3603671383616127b3a5e169cf64ed
> ("virtiofsd: introduce inode refcount to prevent use-after-free")
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
Squashed into the top.
Dave
> ---
> contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> index ee8627446a..a81c01d0d1 100644
> --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> @@ -1969,9 +1969,8 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> struct fuse_file_info *fi)
> pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
>
> res = close(dup(lo_fi_fd(req, fi)));
> - fuse_reply_err(req, res == -1 ? errno : 0);
> -
> lo_inode_put(lo_data(req), &inode);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, res == -1 ? errno : 0);
> }
>
> static void lo_fsync(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, int datasync,
> --
> 2.21.0
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
