On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 11:33:59AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > This patch moves pointer check before the first > dereference of the pointer. > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > Closes: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_r_202503280852.YDB3pxUY-2Dlkp-40intel.com_&d=DwIBAg&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=q5bIm4AXMzc8NJu1_RGmnQ2fMWKq4Y4RAkElvUgSs00&m=Ud7uNdqBY_Z7LJ_oI4fwdhvxOYt_5Q58tpkMQgDWhV3199_TCnINFU28Esc0BaAH&s=QOKWZ9HKLyd6XCxW-AUoKiFFg9roId6LOM01202zAk0&e= Ooh, that's not good. Need to figure out a way to defeat the proofpoint garbage. > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c > index f3951253e393..6cbc33c56e0e 100644 > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c > @@ -1032,9 +1032,11 @@ void ceph_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb) > { > struct ceph_fs_client *fsc = ceph_sb_to_fs_client(sb); > > - doutc(fsc->client, "starting forced umount\n"); > if (!fsc) > return; > + > + doutc(fsc->client, "starting forced umount\n"); I don't think we should be checking fsc against NULL. I don't see a way that sb->s_fs_info can be set to NULL, do you?
