[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100324141400.72479ce6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:14:00 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] Memory compaction core
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:59:46 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:33:47 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > + VM_BUG_ON(cc == NULL);
> >
> > It's a bit strange to test this when we're about to oops anyway. The
> > oops will tell us the same thing.
>
> ...except that we've seen a fair number of null pointer dereference
> exploits that have told us something altogether different. Are we
> *sure* we don't want to test for null pointers...?
>
It's hard to see what the test gains us really - the kernel has
zillions of pointer derefs, any of which could be NULL if we have a
bug. Are we more likely to have a bug here than elsewhere?
This one will oops on a plain old read, so it's a bit moot in this
case.
--
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