Re: [PATCH] Fix use-after-free of q->root_blkg and q->root_rl.blkg

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:56:34AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:

[..]
> >>>         if (ent == &q->root_blkg->q_node)
> >>
> >> So ent is not &q->root_blkg->q_node.
> > 
> > If q->root_blkg is NULL, will it not lead to NULL pointer dereference.
> > (q->root_blkg->q_node).
> 
> It's not dereferenced.

Ok. We are taking address of root_blkg->q_node so even if root_blkg=NULL,
address is just offset from null. Little subtle for me. :-)

> 
> >>>                 ent = ent->next;
> >>>         if (ent == &q->blkg_list)
> >>>                 return NULL;
> >>
> >> And we return NULL here.
> >>
> >> Ah, yes. You are correct.
> >> We can do without the above hunk.
> > 
> > I would rather prefer to check for this boundary condition early and
> > return instead of letting it fall through all these conditions and
> > then figure out yes we have no next rl. IMO, code becomes easier to
> > understand if nothing else. Otherwise one needs a step by step 
> > explanation as above to show that case of q->root_blkg is covered.
> 
> I have same opinion as yours that it's good for readability.


Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
check and original patch which I had acked.

Thanks
Vivek