[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20707240655j533f0882xe067903e5f0ac9b7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:55:36 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
mark.fasheh@...cle.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()
On 7/24/07, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
> guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
> enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.
>
Currently the only user is the MD raid456 driver, and yes, it only
performs copies from the handle_stripe routine which is always run in
process context with interrupts enabled. However this is not
documented. Would it be advisable to add a WARN_ON for this
condition?
> In general, I think the highmem stuff could do with more safety checks:
>
> - People ALWAYS get the atomic unmaps wrong, passing in the page instead
> of the address. I've seen tons of these. And since kunmap_atomic()
> takes a void pointer, nobody notices until it goes boom.
> - People easily get the km type wrong - they use KM_USERx in interrupt
> context, or one of the irq variants without disabling interrupts.
>
> If we could just catch these two types of bugs, we've got a lot of these
> problems covered.
>
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
--
Dan
-
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