On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:04:33 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:55:54 +0100
> Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net> wrote:
> 
> > +void lio_check(struct lio_event *lio)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = atomic_dec_and_test(&lio->lio_users);
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(ret) && lio->lio_notify.notify != SIGEV_NONE) {
> > +		/* last one -> notify process */
> > +		if (aio_send_signal(&lio->lio_notify))
> > +			sigqueue_free(lio->lio_notify.sigq);
> > +		kfree(lio);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> That's a scary function.  It may (or may not) free the memory at lio,
> returning no indication to the caller whether or not that memory is still
> allocated.  This is most peculiar - are you really sure there's no
> potential for a use-after-free here?

  Right again, this patch definitely needs more eyes peering over.

quoted text
> 
> The function is poorly named: I'd expect something called "foo_check" to
> not have any side-effects.  This one has gross side-effects.  Want to think
> up a better name, please?
> 
> And given that this function has global scope, perhaps a little explanatory
> comment is in order?
> 
> > +struct lio_event *lio_create(struct sigevent __user *user_event,
> > +			int mode)
> 
> Here too.

  OK, will look into this. In the meantime, maybe you should drop this one
patch entirely.

  Thanks,

  Sébastien.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/