[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100324215729.GM10659@random.random>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:57:29 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
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, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> As far as I can tell, VM_BUG_ON would make _zero_ differences there.
>
> I think you mistaken a VM_BUG_ON for a:
>
> if (could_be_null->something) {
Ooops, I wrote ->something to indicate that "could_be_null" was going
to later be dereferenced for ->something and here we're checking if it
could be null when we dereference something, but now I think it could
be very confusing as I use strict C for all the rest, so maybe I
should clarify in C it would be !could_be_null.
> WARN_ON(1);
> return -ESOMETHING;
> }
>
> adding a VM_BUG_ON(inode->something) would _still_ be as exploitable
here the same !inode.
--
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