[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52836B53.4080204@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:06:43 +0100
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: avoid use of reclaimed reference
On 11/13/13 02:10, David Decotigny wrote:
> This patch avoids to use an object after it was potentially reclaimed
> by scsi_device_put().
>
> Signed-off-by: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> index 307a811..16e4a44 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> @@ -1498,12 +1498,14 @@ static int scsi_report_lun_scan(struct scsi_target *starget, int bflags,
> out_err:
> kfree(lun_data);
> out:
> - scsi_device_put(sdev);
> - if (scsi_device_created(sdev))
> + if (scsi_device_created(sdev)) {
> /*
> * the sdev we used didn't appear in the report luns scan
> */
> __scsi_remove_device(sdev);
> + }
> +
> + scsi_device_put(sdev);
> return ret;
> }
It would help if you could explain why you started looking at this code.
Is the above patch something you came up with after having analyzed the
SCSI mid-layer source code or perhaps as the result of a test that
failed ? If so, which test was it that failed ?
Thanks,
Bart.
--
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