On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 08:34:53AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 3/11/06, Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >> if (slot->slots[i]) {
> > >>- results[nr_found++] = slot->slots[i];
> > >>+ results[nr_found++] = &slot->slots[i];
> > >> if (nr_found == max_items)
> > >> goto out;
> > >> }
> > >
> > >
> > > A quick clarification - Shouldn't accesses to slot->slots[i] above be
> > > protected using rcu_derefence()?
> > >
> >
> > I think we're safe here -- this is the _address_ of the pointer.
> > However, when dereferencing this address in _gang_lookup,
> > I think we do need rcu_dereference indeed.
> >
>
> Yes, I saw the address operator, but we still derefence "slots" to get
> the address.
>
OK, I reread what you wrote and I misunderstood you earlier I guess.
slot->slots[i] does dereference the pointer at the ith entry of slots,
but &slot->slots[i] does not, it will return the same thing as
slot->slots+i, which only dereferences 'slot' (which we've established
to be safe).
Even if &slot->slots[i] did, for some silly compiler, dereference the
pointer, we never actually see it or use it so it should be harmless.
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
