Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH v2 00/29] kmem limitation for memcg
| Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] slab: dup name string [message #46369 is a reply to message #46366] |
Wed, 16 May 2012 06:12   |
Glauber Costa
Messages: 916
Registered: October 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 05/16/2012 02:04 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
>> index e901a36..91b9c13 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>> @@ -2118,6 +2118,7 @@ static void __kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
>> kfree(l3);
>> }
>> }
>> + kfree(cachep->name);
>> kmem_cache_free(&cache_cache, cachep);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2526,7 +2527,7 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name, size_t size, size_t align,
>> BUG_ON(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(cachep->slabp_cache));
>> }
>> cachep->ctor = ctor;
>> - cachep->name = name;
>> + cachep->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> if (setup_cpu_cache(cachep, gfp)) {
>> __kmem_cache_destroy(cachep);
>
> Couple problems:
>
> - allocating memory for a string of an unknown, unchecked size, and
>
> - could potentially return NULL which I suspect will cause problems
> later.
Well, this is what slub does.
I sent already two patches for it: One removing this from the slub, one
adding this to the slab.
Right now I am comfortable with this one, because it makes it slightly
easier in the latest patches of my series.
But note the word: slightest.
I am comfortable with any, provided slub and slab start behaving the same.
So whatever you guys decide between yourselves is fine, provided there
is a decision.
Thanks for your review, David!
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Sat Jun 28 15:06:19 GMT 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01886 seconds
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
