linux-kernel - Re: BUG at net/sunrpc/svc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50F7F898.5050605@teksavvy.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:11:52 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG at net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c:921

On 13-01-14 11:17 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
>
> Here's the code with the BUG() at net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c line 921:
> 
> /*
>  * Remove a dead transport
>  */
> static void svc_delete_xprt(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
> {
>         struct svc_serv *serv = xprt->xpt_server;
>         struct svc_deferred_req *dr;
> 
>         /* Only do this once */
>         if (test_and_set_bit(XPT_DEAD, &xprt->xpt_flags))
>                 BUG();


Shouldn't there also be a return statement after the BUG() line,
inside the if-stmt ?

I mean, the comment says "only do this once", but it actually
appears to end up doing it twice, despite the test.

??
--
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/