On 05/16/2012 02:04 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index e901a36..91b9c13 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -2118,6 +2118,7 @@ static void __kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
kfree(l3);
}
}
+ kfree(cachep->name);
kmem_cache_free(&cache_cache, cachep);
}
@@ -2526,7 +2527,7 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name, size_t size, size_t align,
BUG_ON(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(cachep->slabp_cache));
}
cachep->ctor = ctor;
- cachep->name = name;
+ cachep->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
if (setup_cpu_cache(cachep, gfp)) {
__kmem_cache_destroy(cachep);
Couple problems:
- allocating memory for a string of an unknown, unchecked size, and
- could potentially return NULL which I suspect will cause problems
later.
Well, this is what slub does.
I sent already two patches for it: One removing this from the slub, one
adding this to the slab.
Right now I am comfortable with this one, because it makes it slightly
easier in the latest patches of my series.
But note the word: slightest.
I am comfortable with any, provided slub and slab start behaving the same.
So whatever you guys decide between yourselves is fine, provided there
is a decision.
Thanks for your review, David!
--
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>