[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170827210220.GG5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 22:02:20 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
Cc: Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"agraf@...e.com" <agraf@...e.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> fails.
And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists