14.08.2014 14:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
>> In function virtio_blk_handle_request, it may freed memory pointed by req,
>> So do not access member of req after calling this function.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
Just a small nitpick...
> Stefan want to pick up this one?
>
>> ---
>> hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
>> index c241c50..54a853a 100644
>> --- a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
>> +++ b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
>> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ static void virtio_blk_handle_output(VirtIODevice *vdev,
>> VirtQueue *vq)
>> static void virtio_blk_dma_restart_bh(void *opaque)
>> {
>> VirtIOBlock *s = opaque;
>> - VirtIOBlockReq *req = s->rq;
>> + VirtIOBlockReq *req = s->rq, *next = NULL;
There's no need to initialize next here.
With init like this I for one instinctively start searching below
how this `NULL' is used (which it isn't).
I'd declare it inside the loop too, since it is a local-to-loop
var, but that doesn't matter much.
/mjt
>> MultiReqBuffer mrb = {
>> .num_writes = 0,
>> };
>> @@ -469,8 +469,9 @@ static void virtio_blk_dma_restart_bh(void *opaque)
>> s->rq = NULL;
>>
>> while (req) {
>> + next = req->next;
>> virtio_blk_handle_request(req, &mrb);
>> - req = req->next;
>> + req = next;
>> }
>>
>> virtio_submit_multiwrite(s->bs, &mrb);
>> --
>> 1.7.12.4
>>
