On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 08:58 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:

On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583

Acked-by: Dan Streetman <redacted>

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>