[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:31:40 -0700
From: Don Mullis <don.mullis@...il.com>
To: dedekind1@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> writes:
> Actually, your 'list_sort()' version does have a problem. I found out
> that it calls 'cmp(priv, a, b)' with 'a = b' sometimes, and in these
> cases 'a' and 'b' can point to something which is not a valid element of
> the original list. Probably a senitel or something like that.
>
> It is easy to work around this by adding:
>
> if (a == b)
> return 0;
>
> in the 'cmp()' function, but this is nevertheless a bug (not too bad,
> though) and should be fixed.
Yes, invalid 'a' or 'b' pointers would be a bug. If providing a test
case is hard, can you say what segment is pointed to? Into the stack?
Into address ranges normal for elements, but not now on the list? Is
there a pattern to the values returned? Is it perhaps always the
first or last callback from a particular call to list_sort()?
That sometimes a==b is, on the other hand, by design:
/*
* In worst cases this loop may run many iterations.
* Continue callbacks to the client even though no
* element comparison is needed, so the client's cmp()
* routine can invoke cond_resched() periodically.
*/
(*cmp)(priv, tail, tail);
Adding a sentence to the function header comment reminding callers
that they need to be able to handle a==b seems like a good idea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists