[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070205171335.GA528@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:13:35 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: S?bastien Dugu? <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.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>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm][AIO] Fix AIO completion signal notification possible ref leak
On 02/05, S?bastien Dugu? wrote:
>
> Make sure we only accept valid sigev_notify values in aio_setup_sigevent(),
> namely SIGEV_NONE, SIGEV_THREAD_ID or SIGEV_SIGNAL.
I think this is correct, but I have another concern (most probably I just
confused looking at non-applied patch), could you re-check?
> @@ -959,6 +959,10 @@ static long aio_setup_sigevent(struct ai
> if (event.sigev_notify == SIGEV_NONE)
> return 0;
>
> + if (event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_SIGNAL &&
> + event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_THREAD_ID)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> notify->notify = event.sigev_notify;
> notify->signo = event.sigev_signo;
> notify->value = event.sigev_value;
Ok. But what if sigevent_find_task() fails after that? Doesn't this mean
that really_put_req() will do put_task_struct(NULL) ?
Oleg.
-
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