[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=xAbbbyOLWG=3fJzeJo8FsvnQR5+M-LbG8cqtX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:15:15 -0500
From: Jeffrey Carlyle <jeff.carlyle@...orola.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jaxboe@...ionio.com,
OLUSANYA SOYANNWO <olusanya.soyannwo@...orola.com>,
Hu Tao <taohu@...orola.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scatterlist: prevent invalid free when alloc fails
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jeffrey Carlyle
<jeff.carlyle@...orola.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On 08/26/2010 06:04 PM, Jeffrey Carlyle wrote:
>>> diff --git a/lib/scatterlist.c b/lib/scatterlist.c
>>> index a5ec428..acf2c6e 100644
>>> --- a/lib/scatterlist.c
>>> +++ b/lib/scatterlist.c
>>> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ void __sg_free_table(struct sg_table *table,
>>> unsigned int max_ents,
>>> return;
>>>
>>> sgl = table->sgl;
>>> - while (table->orig_nents) {
>>> + while (table->orig_nents && sgl) {
>>> unsigned int alloc_size = table->orig_nents;
>>> unsigned int sg_size;
>>
>> Why is this change necessary?
>
> Well the problem we were seeing manifested itself when we called
> free_fn on a NULL value. This was a naive attempt at avoiding that. If
> the logic in __sg_alloc_table is corrected, I agree that we shouldn't
> need this.
Actually, please disregard the comment about trying to free NULL. I
don't think we need to add the "&& sgl" under any circumstances.
--
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