[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B4A0A4.90404@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:12:20 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] kmemcheck v4
Hi,
Vegard Nossum wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> index 412672a..7bdb37f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> @@ -1294,7 +1294,11 @@ static inline void __skb_queue_purge(struct
> sk_buff_head *list)
> static inline struct sk_buff *__dev_alloc_skb(unsigned int length,
> gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> - struct sk_buff *skb = alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask);
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KMEMCHECK
> + gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO;
> +#endif
Use __GFP_NOTRACK here (no need to wrap it in CONFIG_KMEMCHECK either).
> + skb = alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask);
> if (likely(skb))
> skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD);
> return skb;
> diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
> index f865731..87b1b0f 100644
> --- a/init/do_mounts.c
> +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
> @@ -201,9 +201,13 @@ static int __init do_mount_root(char *name, char
> *fs, int flags, void *data)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#if PAGE_SIZE < PATH_MAX
> +# error increase the fs_names allocation size here
> +#endif
> +
> void __init mount_block_root(char *name, int flags)
> {
> - char *fs_names = __getname();
> + char *fs_names = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 1);
> char *p;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
> char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> @@ -251,7 +255,7 @@ retry:
> #endif
> panic("VFS: Unable to mount root fs on %s", b);
> out:
> - putname(fs_names);
> + free_pages((unsigned long)fs_names, 1);
As discussed before, I don't think kmemcheck should be complaining about
this (even though this is a potential bug). Have you tried with the
current patches to see if it still triggers? Could have been one of the
kmemcheck bugs, no?
> @@ -255,6 +258,9 @@ struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device
> *dev,
> int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) : -1;
> struct sk_buff *skb;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KMEMCHECK
> + gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO;
> +#endif
__GFP_NOTRACK here
Pekka
--
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