[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A57AB9A.4050208@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:59:06 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: ext4_mb_initialize_context() forgets to initialize
some fields
Pavel Roskin wrote:
> kmemcheck indicates that ext4_mb_store_histroy() accesses uninitialized
> values of ac->ac_tail and ac->ac_buddy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
> ---
> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 519a0a6..a5a9a35 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -4223,6 +4223,8 @@ ext4_mb_initialize_context(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
> ac->ac_groups_scanned = 0;
> ac->ac_ex_scanned = 0;
> ac->ac_found = 0;
> + ac->ac_tail = 0;
> + ac->ac_buddy = 0;
> ac->ac_sb = sb;
> ac->ac_inode = ar->inode;
> ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical = ar->logical;
Looks good to me; I think it's harmless in the end because we just wind
up w/ garbage in the history if anyone looks, but much better to not
have garbage! :)
At this point I think we are initializing almost all of the 22
allocation context members and 16 of those are 0/NULL; perhaps it'd be
simpler and/or more efficient to just start with a memset(0), but either
way.
(side note, looks like ac_repeats is completely unused...)
Thanks,
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists