Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:58:56 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/shmem: check return value of shmem_init_inodecache | From | Chen Wandun <> |
| |
在 2022/6/6 10:08, Matthew Wilcox 写道: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:34:13AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote: >> On 2022/6/5 19:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 11:55:55AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote: >>>> It will result in null pointer access if shmem_init_inodecache fail, >>>> so check return value of shmem_init_inodecache >>> You ignored my suggestion from v1. Here, let me write it out for you. >> Hi Matthew, >> I didn't ignore your suggestion, some explanation is needed, sorry for >> that. >> >> In V1, Kefeng point: >> "kmem_cache_create return a pointer to the cache on success, NULL on >> failure, >> so error = -ENOMEM; is right :)" >> >> so, I look some similar code such as init_inodecache in kinds of file >> system, they all >> return -ENOMEM on failure, so is it OK to return -ENOMEM on failure :) >> >> Besides, kmem_cache_create return NULL on failure, maybe returning error >> code >> on failure is more proper, but it is another job. > I literally wrote out what I think you should do instead. Stop arguing. > >>> +static int shmem_init_inodecache(void) >>> { >>> shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache", >>> sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info), >>> 0, SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT, shmem_init_inode); >>> + if (!shmem_inode_cachep) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + return 0; >>> } >>> >>> ... >>> >>> + error = shmem_init_inodecache(); >>> + if (error) >>> + goto out2; Oh, I misunderstood what you said, feel so sorry. I will send a new version.
Thanks. >>> >>> >>> . > .
| |