On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 4/14/20 2:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> On 4/14/20 11:42 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> The aarch32_vdso_pages[] array never has entries allocated in the C_VVAR
> >>> or C_VDSO slots, and as the array is zero initialized these contain
> >>> NULL.
> >>>
> >>> However in __aarch32_alloc_vdso_pages() when
> >>> aarch32_alloc_kuser_vdso_page() fails we attempt to free the page whose
> >>> struct page is at NULL, which is obviously nonsensical.
> >>
> >> Could you please explain why do you think that free(NULL) is "nonsensical"?
> >
> > Regardless of the below, can you please explain why it is sensical? I'm
> > struggling to follow your argument here.
>
> free(NULL) is a no-operation ("no action occurs") according to the C standard
> (ISO-IEC 9899 paragraph 7.20.3.2). Hence this should not cause any bug if the
> allocator is correctly implemented. From what I can see the implementation of
> the page allocator honors this assumption.
[...]
> > * page_to_virt(NULL) does not have a well-defined result, and
> > page_to_virt() should only be called for a valid struct page pointer.
> > The result of page_to_virt(NULL) may not be a pointer into the linear
> > map as would be expected.
>
> Do you know why this is the case? To be compliant with what the page allocator
> expects page_to_virt(NULL) should be equal to NULL.
Since __free_page(page) (note the two underscores and pointer type) does
not accept a NULL argument, I don't see any reason for page_to_virt() to
accept NULL as a valid argument.
--
Catalin
