[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090825084808.GA14003@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:48:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from uninitialized
memory (f6f6e1a4), by kmemleak's scan_block()
* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > In any case, I don't think it is very productive to run them both
> > > at the same time, simply because kmemcheck slows every memory
> > > access down so much and scanning memory doesn't exactly help that.
> > > It _could_ be useful to have them compiled into the same kernel,
> > > though, e.g. a distro "-debug" kernel.
> > >
> > > Maybe you can just add the "depends on !KMEMLEAK" to
> > > CONFIG_KMEMCHECK in tip/out-of-tree for now?
> >
> > i think it would be far more intelligent to annotate those accesses
> > by kmemleak as 'trust me, dont check'. Willing to test such a patch.
>
> I guess something like this totally untested patch should do it.
> Vegard, Catalin?
Looks good - but doesnt apply cleanly to -tip because i picked up a
number of kmemleak patches into tip:out-of-tree for testing - so
i'll leave it up for Vegard/Catalin to do a blessed version of it
against the kmemleak tree - which i hope will apply fine to tip too
:)
Ingo
--
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