[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100513131907.a3373db2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:19:07 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: kirjanov@...il.com
Cc: joern@...fs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/btree: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference
On Thu, 13 May 2010 01:20:27 +0400
"Denis Kirjanov <kirjanov@...il.com" <kirjanov@...il.com> wrote:
> mempool_alloc can return null in atomic case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Denis Kirjanov <kirjanov@...il.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/lib/btree.c b/lib/btree.c
> index 41859a8..542c904 100644
> --- a/lib/btree.c
> +++ b/lib/btree.c
> @@ -95,7 +94,8 @@ static unsigned long *btree_node_alloc(struct btree_head *head, gfp_t gfp)
> unsigned long *node;
>
> node = mempool_alloc(head->mempool, gfp);
> - memset(node, 0, NODESIZE);
> + if (likely(node))
> + memset(node, 0, NODESIZE);
> return node;
> }
hm, why is btree.c using mempools? mempools are only appropriate when
it is known that objects will become available if the allocating task
simply waits for a while. Typically, things like BIOs and
request-structs. Simply waiting for the disk to complete some IO will
cause some objects to be returned to the mempool.
If waiting-and-doing-nothing fails to cause objects to be returned to
the pool then the mempool code can lock up.
--
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