Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: add journal NULL check in ocfs2_checkpoint_inode()
Heming Zhao <[email protected]> Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:41:38 +0800
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <ah03j60hzqr3WFWn@p15> |
On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:50:56PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > > > On 6/1/26 11:32 AM, Heming Zhao wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 09:16:45PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > >> During unmount, ocfs2_journal_shutdown() frees the journal and sets > >> osb->journal to NULL. Later, when VFS evicts remaining cached inodes, > >> ocfs2_evict_inode() -> ocfs2_clear_inode() -> ocfs2_checkpoint_inode() > >> -> ocfs2_ci_fully_checkpointed() dereferences osb->journal, causing a > >> NULL pointer dereference. > >> > >> Fix this by adding a NULL check for osb->journal in > >> ocfs2_checkpoint_inode(). If the journal is NULL, it has already been > >> fully flushed and destroyed during shutdown, so there is nothing to > >> checkpoint. > >> > >> Reported-by: Farhad Alemi <[email protected]> > >> Fixes: da5e7c87827e ("ocfs2: cleanup journal init and shutdown") > >> Signed-off-by: Joseph Qi <[email protected]> > >> Tested-by: Farhad Alemi <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> fs/ocfs2/journal.h | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/journal.h b/fs/ocfs2/journal.h > >> index 6397170f302f..f8b3b2a3d630 100644 > >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.h > >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/journal.h > >> @@ -196,6 +196,9 @@ static inline void ocfs2_checkpoint_inode(struct inode *inode) > >> if (ocfs2_mount_local(osb)) > >> return; > >> > >> + if (!osb->journal) > >> + return; > >> + > > > > In my view, the code is correct for this bug. > > However, the if condition is insufficient if ocfs2_journal_shutdown() sets > > "journal = NULL" immediately after this line. > > > During unmount, journal shutdown happens before final inode eviction is > triggered by generic_shutdown_super() -> evict_inodes(). That means they > run sequentially in the unmount path (same thread context). > > Thanks, > Joseph > Thanks for the explanation. I will provide my Reviewed-by tag. Based on the call stack in Farhad's email attachment, it seems the test case triggered the if (osb->slot_num != OCFS2_INVALID_SLOT) condition in ocfs2_dismount_volume() to skip the released slot_inode. Thanks, Heming