> On Jan 16, 2018, at 09:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:01:49PM +0000, Eremin, Dmitry wrote:
>> In the original commit 4d99b2581effe115376402e710fbcb1c3c073769
>
> Please use the documented way to write this:
> 4d99b2581eff ("staging: lustre: avoid intensive reconnecting for
> ko2iblnd")
>
>> was missed one hunk. Added it now to avoid issue with use after free.
>
> And I do not understand this commit message at all.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin <dmitry.ere...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
>> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
>> index 2ebc484..a15a625 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
>> @@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ void kiblnd_destroy_conn(struct kib_conn *conn, bool
>> free_conn)
>> atomic_dec(&net->ibn_nconns);
>> }
>>
>> - kfree(conn);
>> + if (free_conn)
>> + kfree(conn);
>
> This looks really odd, don't you think?
I'm not sure what the objection is here? There is an argument to this
this function named "free_conn" which determines if the structure should
be freed, or if the network connection is just being torn down and
reconnected.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
