On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * Callback for security_inode_init_security() for acquiring xattrs.
> > + */
> > +static int shmem_initxattrs(struct inode *inode,
> > + const struct xattr *xattr_array,
> > + void *fs_info)
> > +{
> > + struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> > + const struct xattr *xattr;
> > + struct shmem_xattr *new_xattr;
> > + size_t len;
> > +
> > + for (xattr = xattr_array; xattr->name != NULL; xattr++) {
> > + new_xattr = shmem_xattr_alloc(xattr->value,
> > xattr->value_len);
> > + if (!new_xattr)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + len = strlen(xattr->name) + 1;
> > + new_xattr->name = kmalloc(XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN + len,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!new_xattr->name) {
> > + kfree(new_xattr);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + memcpy(new_xattr->name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> > + XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN);
> > + memcpy(new_xattr->name + XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN,
> > + xattr->name, len);
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&info->lock);
> > + list_add(&new_xattr->list, &info->xattr_list);
> > + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> So if there's a kmalloc failure partway through the array, we leave a
> partially xattrified inode in place.
>
> Are we sure this is OK?
I'm guessing Jarkko can clean that up a bit. It wouldn't be a good
idea to leave inaccurate data structures laying around during failure
cases.
Ryan
--
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