Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] slab: dup name string

[Glauber Costa]

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