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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 2 May 2020 19:27:31 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <>
To:     Markus Elfring <>,,,
        Christian Bornträger <>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <>,
        Cornelia Huck <>,
        Heiko Carstens <>,
        Janosch Frank <>,
        Vasily Gorbik <>
Cc:     LKML <>
Subject: Re: KVM: s390/mm: Clarification for two return value checks in

On 02.05.20 17:43, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
> I have tried another small script out for the semantic patch language.
> This source code analysis approach points out that the function “gmap_find_shadow”
> is called two times by the function “gmap_shadow”.
> Null pointer checks are performed at these places.

Right, in case we have already a shadow, we return it. In case we are
just concurrently creating/initializing another one, we return -EINVAL
so the caller will retry (and find the fully initialized one). In case
we get NULL, we have to create a new one.

> The function “gmap_find_shadow” is documented in the same source file
> that the pointer “ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN)” can eventually be returned.
> Are the referenced gmap data structures always initialised here?

-EAGAIN makes sure that we are not touching partially initialized one.
In case we find a valid gmap shadow, it is fully initialized. That's
what we have the ->initialized field for.

Hope that answers your question.


David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists