[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1207133961.8514.768.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:59:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context)
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 03:55 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 09:28:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > Good catch, I wonder why it didn't complain in my testing. I've added a
> > > > > patch to fix that, please see it here:
> > > >
> > > > You probably don't have kmemcheck in your kernel ;-)
> > >
> > > Ehm no, you are right :)
> >
> > ... and you can get kmemcheck by testing on x86.git/latest:
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/x86.git/README
> >
> > ;-)
>
> I will check this when I get back to some bandwidth -- but in the meantime,
> does kmemcheck special-case SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU? It is legal to access
> newly-freed items in that case, as long as you did rcu_read_lock()
> before gaining a reference to them and don't hold the reference past
> the matching rcu_read_unlock().
I don't think it does.
It would have to register an call_rcu callback itself in order to mark
it freed - and handle the race with the object being handed out again.
--
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