[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1207134536.8514.773.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:08:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 13:07 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 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().
> >
> > No, kmemcheck is work in progress and does not know about
> > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU yet. The reason I asked Vegard to post the warning
> > was because Peter, Vegard, and myself identified this particular
> > warning as a real problem. But yeah, kmemcheck can cause false
> > positives for RCU for now.
>
> Makes sense, and to me Pauls analysis of the code looks totally correct
> - there's no bug there, at least related to hlist traversal and
> kmem_cache_free(), since we are under rcu_read_lock() and thus hold off
> the grace for freeing.
but what holds off the slab allocator re-issueing that same object and
someone else writing other stuff into it?
--
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