On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 14:18 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 09/10/17 14:16, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since Colin is non-responsive in this thread, I went ahead and took
> > his
> > patch, but then applied a fixup of my own:
>
> Sorry, I somehow missed that email. Thanks for following
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 14:18 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 09/10/17 14:16, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since Colin is non-responsive in this thread, I went ahead and took
> > his
> > patch, but then applied a fixup of my own:
>
> Sorry, I somehow missed that email. Thanks for following
On 09/10/17 14:16, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The
On 09/10/17 14:16, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The allocation for elem may
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:16:35AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > > > From: Colin Ian King
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:16:35AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > > > From: Colin Ian King
> > > >
> >
On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > > From: Colin Ian King
> > >
> > > The allocation for elem may fail
On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 17:48 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > > From: Colin Ian King
> > >
> > > The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
> >
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
> > GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:56:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
> > GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null return. This fixes a
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
> GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null return. This fixes a potential
> null pointer dereference when assigning
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
> GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null return. This fixes a potential
> null pointer dereference when assigning elem->pool.
>
> Detected by
From: Colin Ian King
The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null return. This fixes a potential
null pointer dereference when assigning elem->pool.
Detected by CoverityScan CID#1357507 ("Dereference null
From: Colin Ian King
The allocation for elem may fail (especially because we're using
GFP_ATOMIC) so best to check for a null return. This fixes a potential
null pointer dereference when assigning elem->pool.
Detected by CoverityScan CID#1357507 ("Dereference null return value")
Fixes:
14 matches
Mail list logo