From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep  4 08:47:00 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD2016A4BF
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  4 Sep 2003 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pimout2-ext.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net
	[207.115.63.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11DC43FF9
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  4 Sep 2003 08:46:58 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from bob@immure.com)
Received: from maul.immure.com (adsl-66-136-206-1.dsl.austtx.swbell.net
	[66.136.206.1])h84FkvJ8106010
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:46:58 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by maul.immure.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h84FkvSa063999
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:46:57 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from bob@immure.com)
Received: from luke.immure.com (luke.immure.com [10.1.132.3])
	by maul.immure.com (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h84Fkurs063974
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:46:56 -0500 (CDT)	(envelope-from bob@immure.com)
Received: from luke.immure.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by luke.immure.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h84FkuVf079115
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:46:56 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from bob@luke.immure.com)
Received: (from bob@localhost)
	by luke.immure.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h84FkuEN079114
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:46:56 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:46:56 -0500
From: Bob Willcox <bob@immure.com>
To: hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030904154656.GA77746@luke.immure.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 on maul.immure.com
Subject: getblk() may return NULL, but most caller's don't check for it
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Bob Willcox <bob@immure.com>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:47:00 -0000

Hi All,

While perusing the FreeBSD kernel source code today I noticed that
there are several reasons that the getblk() function in vfs_bio.c might
decide to return a NULL return code. However, checking both 4-stable and
5-current I can find only place (in 5-curren) where the return value
from getblk() is actually checked for the possibility of being NULL (in
function cluster_rbuild() in vfs_cluster.c near line 389). In all other
instances that I can find the returned value is quickly dereferenced w/o
any check.

What am I missing here? Is this really a bug, or are there extenuating
circumstances that prevent getblk() from returning NULL in actual
operation?

Thanks for any insight that you may provide.
Bob

-- 
Bob Willcox                  Maslow's Maxim:
bob@immure.com                   If the only tool you have is a hammer,
Austin, TX                       you treat everything like a nail.