On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > ...except that we've seen a fair number of null pointer dereference > > exploits that have told us something altogether different. Are we > > *sure* we don't want to test for null pointers...? > > > > It's hard to see what the test gains us really - the kernel has > zillions of pointer derefs, any of which could be NULL if we have a > bug. Are we more likely to have a bug here than elsewhere? > > This one will oops on a plain old read, so it's a bit moot in this > case. If the object pointed to is larger than page size and we are referencing a member with an offset larger than page size later then we may create an exploit without checks. But the structure here is certainly smaller than that. So no issue here. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>