Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test

Don Mullis
2010-08-08T19:31:43Z

Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:
> Actually, your 'list_sort()' version does have a problem. I found out
> that it calls 'cmp(priv, a, b)' with 'a = b' sometimes, and in these
> cases 'a' and 'b' can point to something which is not a valid element of
> the original list. Probably a senitel or something like that.
>
> It is easy to work around this by adding:
>
> if (a == b)
> return 0;
>
> in the 'cmp()' function, but this is nevertheless a bug (not too bad,
> though) and should be fixed.

Yes, invalid 'a' or 'b' pointers would be a bug. If providing a test
case is hard, can you say what segment is pointed to? Into the stack?
Into address ranges normal for elements, but not now on the list? Is
there a pattern to the values returned? Is it perhaps always the
first or last callback from a particular call to list_sort()?

That sometimes a==b is, on the other hand, by design:

/*
* In worst cases this loop may run many iterations.
* Continue callbacks to the client even though no
* element comparison is needed, so the client's cmp()
* routine can invoke cond_resched() periodically.
*/
(*cmp)(priv, tail, tail);

Adding a sentence to the function header comment reminding callers
that they need to be able to handle a==b seems like a good idea.