On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:13:35 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/05, S?bastien Dugu? wrote: > > > > Make sure we only accept valid sigev_notify values in > > aio_setup_sigevent(), > > namely SIGEV_NONE, SIGEV_THREAD_ID or SIGEV_SIGNAL. > > I think this is correct, but I have another concern (most probably I just > confused looking at non-applied patch), could you re-check? > > > @@ -959,6 +959,10 @@ static long aio_setup_sigevent(struct ai > > if (event.sigev_notify == SIGEV_NONE) > > return 0; > > > > + if (event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_SIGNAL && > > + event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_THREAD_ID) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > notify->notify = event.sigev_notify; > > notify->signo = event.sigev_signo; > > notify->value = event.sigev_value; > > Ok. But what if sigevent_find_task() fails after that? Doesn't this mean > that really_put_req() will do put_task_struct(NULL) ? > Argh, right, a patch to fix that and a couple of other corner cases to follow soon. Thanks Oleg for looking through this. Sébastien. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
