[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527C0CF7.705@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:58:15 -0800
From: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: EXT4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] rbtree: Fix rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
iterator
On 11/07/2013 01:38 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:42:30 -0800 Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The iterator rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() relies on pointer
>> underflow behavior when testing for loop termination. In particular
>> it expects that
>> &rb_entry(NULL, type, field)->field
>> is NULL. But the result of this expression is not defined by a C standard
>> and some gcc versions (e.g. 4.3.4) assume the above expression can never
>> be equal to NULL. The net result is an oops because the iteration is not
>> properly terminated.
>>
>> Fix the problem by modifying the iterator to avoid pointer underflows.
>
> So the sole caller is in zswap.c. Is that code actually generating oopses?
I can't reproduce the oopses (at all) with my build/gcc version, but Jan
has reported seeing them (not in zswap, however).
>
> IOW, is there any need to fix this in 3.12 or earlier?
>
The zswap usage change showed up in 3.12.
In my opinion, it is probably a good idea to apply the fix to 3.12.
--
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