On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:11 PM Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:57:06PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > As suggested by Dan Carpenter, fortify unpin_user_pages() just a bit, > > against a typical caller mistake: check if the npages arg is really a > > -ERRNO value, which would blow up the unpinning loop: WARN and return. > > > > If this new WARN_ON() fires, then the system *might* be leaking pages > > (by leaving them pinned), but probably not. More likely, gup/pup > > returned a hard -ERRNO error to the caller, who erroneously passed it > > here. > > > > Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]> > > Cc: Souptick Joarder <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > Is is OK to use your signed-off-by here? Since you came up with this. > > > > Yeah. That's fine.
Do we need a similar check inside unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(), when make_dirty set to false ?
