[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070123220433.018b40b6.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:04:33 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/5][AIO] - Add listio syscall support
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:55:54 +0100
Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net> wrote:
> +void lio_check(struct lio_event *lio)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = atomic_dec_and_test(&lio->lio_users);
> +
> + if (unlikely(ret) && lio->lio_notify.notify != SIGEV_NONE) {
> + /* last one -> notify process */
> + if (aio_send_signal(&lio->lio_notify))
> + sigqueue_free(lio->lio_notify.sigq);
> + kfree(lio);
> + }
> +}
That's a scary function. It may (or may not) free the memory at lio,
returning no indication to the caller whether or not that memory is still
allocated. This is most peculiar - are you really sure there's no
potential for a use-after-free here?
The function is poorly named: I'd expect something called "foo_check" to
not have any side-effects. This one has gross side-effects. Want to think
up a better name, please?
And given that this function has global scope, perhaps a little explanatory
comment is in order?
> +struct lio_event *lio_create(struct sigevent __user *user_event,
> + int mode)
Here too.
-
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