[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020807100024x7f20847bs72347fd9be515eea@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:24:45 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
"Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Kernel Testers List" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for July 9 (kmemcheck: Caught 8-bit read from freed memory (ffff880127c120e8))
Hi Vegard,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> Also, the error report is bogus. We should make kmemcheck depend on
> !CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB && !CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON for now, because these
> modes interfere with the checking that kmemcheck does.
Agreed.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> That said, we *might* be able to do a kmemcheck_off()/kmemcheck_on()
> thing around the special code. Maybe a kmemcheck_read() which
> bypasses the checking for a single read.
>
> But I really do think kmemcheck and slab/slub debugging should be
> mutually exclusive. They do essentially the same thing, except that
> kmemcheck is much more eager and detects problems right where they
> happen (though sometimes too eagerly too; the false positives).
I'm not so sure about this. You ought to be able to compile-in SLUB
debugging and kmemcheck support but only enable one of them at
run-time.
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