Message-ID: <4898785E.1010702@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:57:18 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 SeaMonkey/1.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make kthread_stop() not oops when passed a bad pointer
References: <20080805135559.GQ26461@parisc-linux.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080805135559.GQ26461@parisc-linux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 740
Lines: 27

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	if (!k || IS_ERR(k))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>  	mutex_lock(&kthread_stop_lock);
>  
>  	/* It could exit after stop_info.k set, but before wake_up_process. */

Would
	if (WARN_ON(!k || IS_ERR(k)))

be in order, or are there valid cases of passing an invalid pointer?
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- =--- --=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/