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>
a95104fd33