[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E3C06D2.2020309@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:05:54 +0200
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Joe Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] xen-blkback: add missing return on error in xen_update_blkif_status()
On 08/05/11 16:18, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We should return here after reporting the error. Otherwise we'd hit
> a NULL deref of blkif->xenblkd on the next line.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter<error27@...il.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> index 32d4c3c..b750299 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ static void xen_update_blkif_status(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> err = PTR_ERR(blkif->xenblkd);
> blkif->xenblkd = NULL;
> xenbus_dev_error(blkif->be->dev, err, "start xenblkd");
> + return;
> }
>
> blkif->be->kthread_pid = blkif->xenblkd->pid;
In case somebody were asking for my opinion:
I think this block was the last block in the originally containing
function (update_blkif_status()?), thus the "return" wasn't needed
there. I guess the block got copied and then other code was added below it.
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
--
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