[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110315131020.36477a1c@bike.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:10:20 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 11/20] 11: uprobes: slot allocation
for uprobes
Just a couple of minor notes while I was looking at this code...
> +static struct uprobes_xol_area *xol_alloc_area(void)
> +{
> + struct uprobes_xol_area *area = NULL;
> +
> + area = kzalloc(sizeof(*area), GFP_USER);
> + if (unlikely(!area))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + area->bitmap = kzalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(UINSNS_PER_PAGE) * sizeof(long),
> + GFP_USER);
Why GFP_USER? That causes extra allocation limits to be enforced. Given
that in part 14 you have:
+/* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */
+static int pre_ssout(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ unsigned long vaddr)
+{
+ xol_get_insn_slot(uprobe, vaddr);
+ BUG_ON(!current->utask->xol_vaddr);
It seems to me that you really don't want those allocations to fail.
back to xol_alloc_area():
> + if (!area->bitmap)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&area->slot_lock);
> + if (!xol_add_vma(area) && !current->mm->uprobes_xol_area) {
> + task_lock(current);
> + if (!current->mm->uprobes_xol_area) {
> + current->mm->uprobes_xol_area = area;
> + task_unlock(current);
> + return area;
> + }
> + task_unlock(current);
> + }
> +
> +fail:
> + if (area) {
> + if (area->bitmap)
> + kfree(area->bitmap);
> + kfree(area);
> + }
You've already checked area against NULL, and kfree() can handle null
pointers, so both of those tests are unneeded.
> + return current->mm->uprobes_xol_area;
> +}
jon
--
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