Al Viro writes:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> >
>> > > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
>> >
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:28:08AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems to me that it would b
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > > call before the kvm_get
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> > fails.
>
> And what happe
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> fails.
And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?
>On 23.08.2017 08:06, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:43:08AM +, Nixiaoming wrote:
On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
>> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail so add check
>> anon_inode_getfd r
>On 23.08.2017 08:06, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:43:08AM +, Nixiaoming wrote:
On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
>> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail so add check
>> anon_inode_getfd r
>>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>>> + kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
>>> + goto fail;
>>> + }
>>> + return ret;
>
> of simply
>
> if (!ret)
if (ret >= 0)
return ret;
is of course what I meant :)
> return 0;
>
> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>
On 23.08.2017 08:06, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:43:08AM +, Nixiaoming wrote:
>>> On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail so add check
> anon_inode_getfd return
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:43:08AM +, Nixiaoming wrote:
> >On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
> >>> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail so add check
> >>> anon_inode_getfd return val, and kfree stt
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by:
>On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
>>> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail so add check
>>> anon_inode_getfd return val, and kfree stt
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: nixiaoming
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_vio.c | 5 -
>>>
On 22.08.2017 17:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
>> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail
>> so add check anon_inode_getfd return val, and kfree stt
>>
>> Signed-off-by: nixiaoming
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_vio.c | 5 -
>> 1 file ch
On 22.08.2017 16:28, nixiaoming wrote:
> miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail
> so add check anon_inode_getfd return val, and kfree stt
>
> Signed-off-by: nixiaoming
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_vio.c | 5 -
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
miss kfree(stt) when anon_inode_getfd return fail
so add check anon_inode_getfd return val, and kfree stt
Signed-off-by: nixiaoming
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_vio.c | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_vio.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/boo
14 matches
Mail list logo