On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I _think_ we can just do
>
> --- a/fs/compat.c~a
> +++ a/fs/compat.c
> @@ -1566,9 +1566,13 @@ int compat_core_sys_select(int n, compat
> */
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> size = FDS_BYTES(n);
> - bits = kmalloc(6 * size, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!bits)
> - goto out_nofds;
> + if (likely(size)) {
> + bits = kmalloc(6 * size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!bits)
> + goto out_nofds;
> + } else {
> + bits = NULL;
> + }
> fds.in = (unsigned long *) bits;
> fds.out = (unsigned long *) (bits + size);
> fds.ex = (unsigned long *) (bits + 2*size);
> _
>
> I mean, if that oopses then I'd be very interested in finding out why.
>
> But I'm starting to suspect that it would be better to permit kmalloc(0) in
> slub. It depends on how many more of these things need fixing.
>
> otoh, a kmalloc(0) could be a sign of some buggy/inefficient/weird code, so
> there's some value in forcing us to go look at all the callsites.
Hmmm... We could have kmalloc(0) return a pointer to the zero page? That
would catch any writers?
-
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/
