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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:05:33 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Cc: zhanghy@...gfor.com, jasowang@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: KVM: x86: question about kvm_ioapic_destroy On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 07:19:58PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > 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 I think the NULL test is not needed. kvm_ioapic_destroy is only called if kvm_ioapic_init completed successfully, and that sets kvm->arch.vioapic. -- MST -- 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