lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6] 2/3 Serio: possible race in handle_events
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 23 August 2003 02:00 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > +static int is_known_serio(struct serio *serio)
> > > +{
> > > + struct serio *s;
> > > +
> > > + list_for_each_entry(s, &serio_list, node)
> > > + if (s == serio)
> > > + return 1;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > Could this just be
> >
> > return !list_empty(&serio->node);
> >
> > ?
>
> The serio could be free()d, I dont think we want to call list_empty with
> a dangling pointer. Or am I missing something?
>

Well if we're playing around with a freed pointer then something is
seriously wrong. Like, someone could have allocated a new one and got the
same address.

If event->serio can point at freed memory and there's any doubt over it
then we should be nulling out event->serio to indicate that.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.039 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site