On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 08:58 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky > > <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer > > > argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although > > > there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1), > > > still update it to be coherent with the corresponding > > > destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab, > > > mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers. > > > > > > For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the > > > pointer there. > > > > > > Proposed by Andrew Morton. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com> > > > Reported-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > > > LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 > > > > Acked-by: Dan Streetman <ddstr...@ieee.org> > > Thanks. > > Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the > "$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required" list?
[] Is it really worth it? There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. -- 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/
