linux-kernel - KVM: x86: question about kvm_ioapic

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:19:58 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	zhanghy@...gfor.com, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	zhanghy@...gfor.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: KVM: x86: question about kvm_ioapic_destroy

The function kvm_ioapic_destroy is defined as follows:

void kvm_ioapic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
{
        struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic = kvm->arch.vioapic;

        cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ioapic->eoi_inject);
        if (ioapic) {
                kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev(kvm, KVM_MMIO_BUS, &ioapic->dev);
                kvm->arch.vioapic = NULL;
                kfree(ioapic);
        }
}

Is there any way that cancel_delayed_work_sync can work if ioapic is NULL?  
Should the call be moved down under the NULL test?  Or is the NULL test 
not needed?  The NULL test has been there longer than the call to 
cancel_delayed_work_sync, which was introduced in 184564ef.

thanks,
julia
--
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/