Obviously, the error variable detection of the if statement is for the mprotect callback function, so it is also put into the scope of calling callbck.
Reported-by: Jia Zhang zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com --- mm/mprotect.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c index ab709023e9aa..94188df1ee55 100644 --- a/mm/mprotect.c +++ b/mm/mprotect.c @@ -617,10 +617,11 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len, if (tmp > end) tmp = end;
- if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect) + if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect) { error = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, nstart, tmp, newflags); - if (error) - goto out; + if (error) + goto out; + }
error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags); if (error)
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:33:10PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
Obviously, the error variable detection of the if statement is for the mprotect callback function, so it is also put into the scope of calling callbck.
Reported-by: Jia Zhang zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com
No fixes tag, no description what this commit does. Nothing makes sense to me.
/Jarkko
mm/mprotect.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c index ab709023e9aa..94188df1ee55 100644 --- a/mm/mprotect.c +++ b/mm/mprotect.c @@ -617,10 +617,11 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len, if (tmp > end) tmp = end;
if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect)
if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect) { error = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, nstart, tmp, newflags);
if (error)goto out;
if (error)goto out;}error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags); if (error) -- 2.19.1.3.ge56e4f7
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:29:20 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:33:10PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
Obviously, the error variable detection of the if statement is for the mprotect callback function, so it is also put into the scope of calling callbck.
Reported-by: Jia Zhang zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com
No fixes tag, no description what this commit does. Nothing makes sense to me.
It's a little cleanup. Makes the flow at this site consistent with the other places where this function handles errors. I added a bit to the changelog mentioning this.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:46:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:29:20 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:33:10PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
Obviously, the error variable detection of the if statement is for the mprotect callback function, so it is also put into the scope of calling callbck.
Reported-by: Jia Zhang zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com
No fixes tag, no description what this commit does. Nothing makes sense to me.
It's a little cleanup. Makes the flow at this site consistent with the other places where this function handles errors. I added a bit to the changelog mentioning this.
Alright, I see. I'm just used to getting feedback to my own patches that "imperative form" of expression should be rigidly used. That's the main reason I gave the feedback.
/Jarkko
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andrew Morton -
Jarkko Sakkinen -
Tianjia Zhang