[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871vd7oc38.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 05:44:59 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix uninitialized spinlock of printk_ratelimited()
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
>> -#define printk_ratelimited(fmt, ...) ({ \
>> - static struct ratelimit_state _rs = { \
>> - .interval = DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \
>> - .burst = DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST, \
>> - }; \
>> - \
>> - if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \
>> - printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> +#define printk_ratelimited(fmt, ...) ({ \
>> + static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \
>> + DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \
>> + DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \
>> + \
>> + if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \
>> + printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> })
>
> hm, yes, that spinlock will get the all-zeroes pattern.
>
> It's been like this since December 2009. I'm a bit surprised that none
> of our spinlock-debugging goodies picked this up. All the
> CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK spinlock fields end up zeroed out also.
The reason that dynamic analysis didn't pick up is simple - nobody is
using this for now :)
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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