Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:50:58 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: RFC: radix tree safety |
| |
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > >I've been digging through the radix tree code, and I noticed that the > >tag functions have an interesting limitation. The tag is given as an > >integer value, but, in reality, the only values that work are zero and > >one. Anything else will return random results or (when setting tags) > >corrupt unrelated memory.
Various people at various times have added additional tags. reiser4...
> >The number of radix tree users is small, so it's not hard to confirm > >that all tag values currently in use are legal. But the interface would > >seem to invite mistakes. > > > >The following patch puts in checks for out-of-range tag values. I've > >elected to have the relevant call fail; one could argue that it should > >BUG instead. Either seems better than silently doing weird stuff. Not > >2.6.16 material, obviously, but maybe suitable thereafter. > > > > > > I'd agree if you make them BUG_ON()s. > > Andrew Morton's kind of the radix-tree tags guy though... Andrew?
I don't really see the need - if someone goes and overindexes the data structure's capacity then they have a bug and hopefully that'll turn up in testing and will get fixed.
Or am I missing something obvious which makes radix-trees particularly dangerous or subtle?? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |