On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -86,6 +87,9 @@ static inline int kmalloc_index(int size
> > */
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(size == 0);
> >
> > + if (size >= (1UL << KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH))
> > + return -1;
> > +
>
> I don't quite understand why we did this. The subsequent logic in
> kmalloc_index() should return -1 for this `size' anyway. If it doesn't,
> it's bust, isn't it?
KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH is not a constant but may be less than 25.
> Also, afaict kmalloc_slab() will totally mishandle the -1 return value and
> will return a garbage kmem_cache*, via
>
> return &kmalloc_caches[index];
It does an
if (index < 0)
before getting to that statement.
> Could you double-check it all please?
It was already checked.
-
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]
