Chris,
in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/616 you stated:
">> + alloc_cpumask_var(&watchdog_cpumask_for_smpboot, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> alloc_cpumask_var could fail?
Good catch; if I get a failure I'll just return early without trying to
start the watchdog, since clearly things are too memory-constrained
to enable that functionality anyway."
Let's assume that (in spite of the memory constraints) the kernel would still
be able to make progress and get to a point where the system will be usable.
In this corner case, the following code would leave a NULL pointer behind in
watchdog_cpumask and in watchdog_cpumask_bits which could subsequently lead
to a crash.
void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
{
set_sample_period();
+ if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&watchdog_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
+ pr_err("Failed to allocate cpumask for watchdog");
+ return;
+ }
+ watchdog_cpumask_bits = cpumask_bits(watchdog_cpumask);
For example, proc_watchdog_cpumask() and the change that your patch introduces
in watchdog_enable_all_cpus() are not protected against a possible NULL pointer.
I think the code needs to be made safer.
Regards,
Uli
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
