* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-26 13:18:38]:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:42 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:29:49PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > +static void delete_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > > + rb_erase(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > > + iput(uprobe->inode);
> >
> > Use-after-free when put_uprobe() kfrees() the uprobe?
>
> I suspect the caller still has one, and this was the reference for being
> part of the tree. But yes, that could do with a comment.
>
Yes, the caller has a reference, However I went ahead and changed the
order of the last two statements.
> The comment near atomic_set() in __insert_uprobe() isn't too clear
> either. /* get access + drop ref */, would naively seem +1 -1 = 0,
> instead of +1 +1 = 2.
>
Okay, Have modified the comment to /* get access + creation ref */
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>