Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Balbir Singh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Trivial patch against mempool | Date | Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:59:16 -0800 |
| |
You are absoultely correct. The correct patch is
--- mempool.c.org Fri Feb 22 12:00:58 2002 +++ mempool.c Fri Feb 22 15:01:02 2002 @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ mempool_t *pool; int i;
+ if (!alloc_fn || !free_fn) + return NULL; + pool = kmalloc(sizeof(*pool), GFP_KERNEL); if (!pool) return NULL; Balbir Singh.
>From: Marcus Alanen <marcus@infa.abo.fi> >To: balbir_soni@hotmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [PATCH] Trivial patch against mempool >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:40:43 +0200 > > >Check if the alloc_fn and free_fn are not NULL. The caller generally > >ensures that alloc_fn and free_fn are valid. It would not harm > >to check. This makes the checking in mempool_create() more complete. > > > > > >--- mempool.c.org Fri Feb 22 12:00:58 2002 > >+++ mempool.c Fri Feb 22 12:01:13 2002 > >@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ > > int i; > > > > pool = kmalloc(sizeof(*pool), GFP_KERNEL); > >- if (!pool) > >+ if (!pool || !alloc_fn || !free_fn) > > return NULL; > > memset(pool, 0, sizeof(*pool)); > > > >A successful allocation with alloc_fn or free_fn equal to NULL >would return NULL, without freeing pool. => This check would >leak memory? Wouldn't it be better to check for !alloc_fn || !free_fn >before the kmalloc() > > >-- >Marcus Alanen >maalanen@abo.fi
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - 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/
| |