[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230616224407.863c74a3dc9d4f1427802f91@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 22:44:07 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@...il.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, rppt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/sparse:avoid null pointer access in memory_present()
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@...il.com> wrote:
> __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
> set_section_nid(section, nid);
>
> ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> - if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> + if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
> ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
> SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
> __section_mark_present(ms, section);
I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
just panic. But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
things?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists