[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19140.13582.223629.56214@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:50:22 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Possible bug in ftrace_profile_enable_event
I was looking through kernel/trace/trace_event_profile.c and I saw
this code:
static int ftrace_profile_enable_event(struct ftrace_event_call *event)
{
char *buf;
int ret = -ENOMEM;
if (atomic_inc_return(&event->profile_count))
return 0;
if (!total_profile_count++) {
buf = (char *)alloc_percpu(profile_buf_t);
if (!buf)
goto fail_buf;
rcu_assign_pointer(trace_profile_buf, buf);
buf = (char *)alloc_percpu(profile_buf_t);
if (!buf)
goto fail_buf_nmi;
rcu_assign_pointer(trace_profile_buf_nmi, buf);
}
ret = event->profile_enable();
if (!ret)
return 0;
kfree(trace_profile_buf_nmi);
fail_buf_nmi:
kfree(trace_profile_buf);
fail_buf:
total_profile_count--;
...
So we only allocate trace_profile_buf and trace_profile_buf_nmi if
total_profile_count was zero on entry, but if we get an error returned
from event->profile_enable(), we free them both unconditionally,
regardless of the value of total_profile_count. That seems wrong. Is
there a subtle reason why that is the right thing to do?
(Also, is kfree the appropriate counterpart to alloc_percpu?)
Paul.
--
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