Thanks a lot. I found it when reviewing this codes. and BUG_ON is
added in the init_inodecache(). We may remove it or not ?
diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
index b332d1e..ebee3ee 100644
--- a/net/socket.c
+++ b/net/socket.c
@@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ static void init_inodecache(void)
SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT |
SLAB_MEM_SPREAD | SLAB_ACCOUNT),
init_once);
- BUG_ON(sock_inode_cachep == NULL);
}
static const struct super_operations sockfs_ops = {
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:49 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:04:38 -0700
>
>> When initializing the skbuff SLAB cache, we should make
>> sure it is successful. Adding BUG_ON to check it and
>> init_inodecache() is in the same case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> net/core/skbuff.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
>> index 42b62c716a33..9513de519870 100644
>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
>> @@ -3904,6 +3904,8 @@ void __init skb_init(void)
>> 0,
>> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC,
>> NULL);
>> + BUG_ON(skbuff_head_cache == NULL);
>> + BUG_ON(skbuff_fclone_cache == NULL);
>> }
>
> I know you guys want every allocation to be explicitly checked so that
> everything is consistent for static code analysis checkers.
>
> But this is just wasted code.
>
> The first allocation will take a NULL dereference and the backtrace
> will make it completely clear which SLAB cache was NULL and couldn't
> be allocated.
>
> So there is no real value to adding these checks.
>
> So I'm not applying this, sorry.
>
> The same logic goes for your other patch of this nature.
>
