[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183422700.3130.27.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:31:40 -0400
From: Jim Houston <jim.houston@...r.com>
To: Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
openib-general@...nib.org,
Stefan Roscher <ossrosch@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
raisch@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: idr_get_new_above() limitation?
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 19:19 +0200, Hoang-Nam Nguyen wrote:
> i=3fffffff token=3fffffff t=000000003fffffff
> i=40000000 token=40000000 t=0000000000000000
> Invalid object 0000000000000000. Expected 40000000
>
> That means token 0x40000000 seems to be the "upper boundary" of idr_find().
> However the behaviour is not consistent in that it was returned by
> idr_get_new_above().
Hi Nam,
Yes this is a bug. Thanks for the great test module.
The problem is in idr_get_new_above_int() in the loop which
adds new layers to the top of the radix tree. It is failing
the "layers < (MAX_LEVEL - 1)" test. It doesn't allocate the
new layer but still calls sub_alloc() which relies on having
the new layer properly constructed. I believe that it is
allocating the slot which corresponds to id = 0.
I believe this is an off by one error in calculating the
MAX_LEVEL value. I will do a more careful review and post
a fix in the next day or so. I have been in Ottawa for OLS.
I'm flying home tomorrow.
Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists