[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1509141004430.7970@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/39] dm: drop null test before destroy functions
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14 2015 at 9:46am -0400,
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > > Remove unneeded NULL test.
> > >
> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> > >
> > > // <smpl>
> > > @@ expression x; @@
> > > -if (x != NULL)
> > > \(kmem_cache_destroy\|mempool_destroy\|dma_pool_destroy\)(x);
> > > // </smpl>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/md/dm-bufio.c | 3 +--
> > > drivers/md/dm-cache-target.c | 3 +--
> > > drivers/md/dm-crypt.c | 6 ++----
> > > drivers/md/dm-io.c | 3 +--
> > > drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-base.c | 3 +--
> > > drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c | 4 +---
> > > drivers/md/dm.c | 13 ++++---------
> > > 7 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c b/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
> > > index 83cc52e..8ad39b6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
> > > @@ -1864,8 +1864,7 @@ static void __exit dm_bufio_exit(void)
> > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dm_bufio_caches); i++) {
> > > struct kmem_cache *kc = dm_bufio_caches[i];
> > >
> > > - if (kc)
> > > - kmem_cache_destroy(kc);
> > > + kmem_cache_destroy(kc);
> > > }
> >
> > The variable here can be NULL. I don't know how did you conclude that it
> > cannot. It seems that you didn't test the patch, if you did, you'd hit
> > NULL pointer dereference here.
>
> kmem_cache_destroy(), mempool_destroy(), etc all check for NULL and just
> return. So there is no need for the callers to check for NULL too.
>
> Mike
I see. It was recent change that I missed.
Mikulas
--
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