Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> >I've been digging through the radix tree code, and I noticed that the
> >tag functions have an interesting limitation. The tag is given as an
> >integer value, but, in reality, the only values that work are zero and
> >one. Anything else will return random results or (when setting tags)
> >corrupt unrelated memory.
Various people at various times have added additional tags. reiser4...
> >The number of radix tree users is small, so it's not hard to confirm
> >that all tag values currently in use are legal. But the interface would
> >seem to invite mistakes.
> >
> >The following patch puts in checks for out-of-range tag values. I've
> >elected to have the relevant call fail; one could argue that it should
> >BUG instead. Either seems better than silently doing weird stuff. Not
> >2.6.16 material, obviously, but maybe suitable thereafter.
> >
> >
>
> I'd agree if you make them BUG_ON()s.
>
> Andrew Morton's kind of the radix-tree tags guy though... Andrew?
I don't really see the need - if someone goes and overindexes the data
structure's capacity then they have a bug and hopefully that'll turn up in
testing and will get fixed.
Or am I missing something obvious which makes radix-trees particularly
dangerous or subtle??
-
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]
