On 1/11/23 7:10 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > > > On 2023/1/11 22:49, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 1/11/23 3:19 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: >>> As described in a previous commit 998b30c3948e, current->io_uring could >>> be NULL, and thus a NULL check is required for this variable. >>> >>> In the same way, other functions that access current->io_uring also >>> require NULL checks of this variable. >> This seems odd. Have you actually seen traces of this, or is it just >> based on "guess it can be NULL sometimes, check it in all spots"? >> > > Thanks for the reply! > I checked the previous commit and inferred that there may be some problems. > I am not quite sure of this, and thus want to listen to your opinions :) I'd invite you to look over each of them separately, and see if that path could potentially lead to current->io_uring == NULL and thus being an issue. I think that'd be a useful exercise, and you never know that you might find :-) -- Jens Axboe
