Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:51:55 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locktorture: Fix NULL pointer when torture_type is
 invalid
Message-ID: <20160308195155.GY3577@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20160302195543.GA12593@linux-uzut.site>
 <20160302211216.GC3577@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <56D79566.7010302@huawei.com>
 <56D7BE33.5010605@huawei.com>
 <20160303083626.GA10957@linux-uzut.site>
 <56DCE0D4.1060109@huawei.com>
 <20160307054007.GA8192@linux-uzut.site>
 <56DD276D.1070607@huawei.com>
 <20160307133745.GQ3577@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <56DE34AC.3020902@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56DE34AC.3020902@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1306
Lines: 38

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:10:52AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016/3/7 21:37, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:02:05PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2016/3/7 13:40, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> >>>> On 2016/3/3 16:36, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> +    /*
> >>>>> +     * Indicates early cleanup, meaning that the test has not run,
> >>>>> +     * such as when passing bogus args when loading the module. As
> >>>>> +     * such, only perform the underlying torture-specific cleanups,
> >>>>> +     * and avoid anything related to locktorture.
> >>>>> +     */
> >>>>> +    if (!cxt.lwsa)
> >>>>> +        goto end;
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for the late response, the cxt.lrsa should be taken into account too.
> >>>
> >>> I am taking it into account, note that we kfree lwsa if lrsa fails memory
> >>> allocation. Of course we should be defensive, so go ahead and explicitly set
> >>> it to nil. v2 below, otherwise same patch.
> >>
> >> This one looks good, and tested on my board.
> > 
> > Very good!  May we add your Tested-by?
> 
> Sure, please.

Thank you, Kefeng!

Davidlohr, I tried applying your patches and got conflicts.  Could you
please port them to -rcu and send me clean versions?

							Thanx, Paul