Revision a95104fd3393080e8bcca348f51996f5f0f5ccb6 authored by David Howells on 27 January 2015, 15:01:18 UTC, committed by Al Viro on 20 February 2015, 09:56:45 UTC
Code that does this: if (!(d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode)) { ... simple_unlink(parent->d_inode, tmp); } is broken because: !(d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode) is equivalent to: !d_unhashed(tmp) || !tmp->d_inode so it is possible to get into simple_unlink() with tmp->d_inode == NULL. simple_unlink(), however, assumes tmp->d_inode cannot be NULL. I think that what was meant is this: !d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode and that the logical-not operator or the final close-bracket was misplaced. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@pathscale.com> cc: Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
1 parent fed0b58