[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:14:59 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] kmemleak: Add the base support
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:36 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 00:01 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Catalin Marinas
> > <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > > +static void put_object(struct memleak_object *object)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&object->use_count))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /* should only get here after delete_object was called */
> > > + BUG_ON(object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED);
> >
> > This could be
> >
> > if (WARN_ON(object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED))
> > return;
>
> I'm not sure just warning would be enough. If this happens, its a severe
> bug in kmemleak and the tool is no longer useful (it could even leak
> memory or free already freed blocks). I could change it to a
> memleak_panic call but if the object use_count isn't reliable, the
> memleak_disable call wouldn't work properly either.
Oh, we use WARN_ON() for things like this as well to maximize the
likelihood of the oops actually reaching the user. But whatever works
for you the best.
--
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