Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?

[Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:18 -0700
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
> 
> Probably - it becomes an elaborate way of doing a sleep.  Whatever - we
> used to permit it without error, so we should continue to do so.

Okay.

> 
> > I see that there is no check to prevent this or return
> > success early, without doing any work. Do we need one ?
> > 
> > slub code is complaining that we are doing kmalloc(0).
> > 
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > Badness at include/linux/slub_def.h:88
> > Call Trace:
> > [c0000001e4eb7640] [c00000000000e650] .show_stack+0x68/0x1b0
> > (unreliable)
> > [c0000001e4eb76e0] [c00000000029b854] .report_bug+0x94/0xe8
> > [c0000001e4eb7770] [c0000000000219f0] .program_check_exception
> > +0x12c/0x568
> > [c0000001e4eb77f0] [c000000000004a84] program_check_common+0x104/0x180
> > --- Exception: 700 at .get_slab+0x4c/0x234
> >     LR = .__kmalloc+0x24/0xc4
> > [c0000001e4eb7ae0] [c0000001e4eb7b80] 0xc0000001e4eb7b80 (unreliable)
> > [c0000001e4eb7b80] [c0000000000a7ff0] .__kmalloc+0x24/0xc4
> > [c0000001e4eb7c10] [c0000000000ea720] .compat_core_sys_select+0x90/0x240
> > [c0000001e4eb7d00] [c0000000000ec3a4] .compat_sys_select+0xb0/0x190
> > [c0000001e4eb7dc0] [c000000000014944] .ppc32_select+0x14/0x28
> > [c0000001e4eb7e30] [c00000000000872c] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
> >
> 
> I _think_ we can just do
> 
> --- a/fs/compat.c~a
> +++ a/fs/compat.c
> @@ -1566,9 +1566,13 @@ int compat_core_sys_select(int n, compat
>  	 */
>  	ret = -ENOMEM;
>  	size = FDS_BYTES(n);
> -	bits = kmalloc(6 * size, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!bits)
> -		goto out_nofds;
> +	if (likely(size)) {
> +		bits = kmalloc(6 * size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!bits)
> +			goto out_nofds;
> +	} else {
> +		bits = NULL;
> +	}
>  	fds.in      = (unsigned long *)  bits;
>  	fds.out     = (unsigned long *) (bits +   size);
>  	fds.ex      = (unsigned long *) (bits + 2*size);
> _


Yes. This is what I did earlier, but then I was wondering if I
could skip the whole operation and bail out early (if n == 0). 
I guess not.

> I mean, if that oopses then I'd be very interested in finding out why.
> 
> But I'm starting to suspect that it would be better to permit kmalloc(0) in
> slub.  It depends on how many more of these things need fixing.
> 
> otoh, a kmalloc(0) could be a sign of some buggy/inefficient/weird code, so
> there's some value in forcing us to go look at all the callsites.

So far, I haven't found any other. Lets leave the check.

Thanks,
Badari

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/