Re: [PATCH 30/31] Fix use of uninitialized variable in cache_grow()
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Date: 2009-10-01 20:49:10
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Miklos Szeredi <redacted> This fixes a bug in reserve-slub.patch. If cache_grow() was called with objp != NULL then the 'reserve' local variable wasn't initialized. This resulted in ac->reserve being set to a rubbish value. Due to this in some circumstances huge amounts of slab pages were allocated (due to slab_force_alloc() returning true), which caused atomic page allocation failures and slowdown of the system. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <redacted> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <redacted> --- mm/slab.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Index: mmotm/mm/slab.c ===================================================================--- mmotm.orig/mm/slab.c +++ mmotm/mm/slab.c@@ -2760,7 +2760,7 @@ static int cache_grow(struct kmem_cache size_t offset; gfp_t local_flags; struct kmem_list3 *l3; - int reserve; + int reserve = -1; /* * Be lazy and only check for valid flags here, keeping it out of the@@ -2816,7 +2816,8 @@ static int cache_grow(struct kmem_cache if (local_flags & __GFP_WAIT) local_irq_disable(); check_irq_off(); - slab_set_reserve(cachep, reserve); + if (reserve != -1) + slab_set_reserve(cachep, reserve); spin_lock(&l3->list_lock); /* Make slab active. */
Given the patch description, shouldn't this be a test for objp != NULL instead, then? If so, it doesn't make sense because reserve will only be initialized when objp == NULL in the call to kmem_getpages() from cache_grow(). The title of the patch suggests this is just dealing with an uninitialized auto variable so the anticipated change would be from "int reserve" to "int uninitialized_var(result)".