linux-kernel - Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120625132037.GW2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:20:37 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:10:23AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > But in my case, the trailing preempt_enable() should not have been
> > optimized away, right?  Wouldn't it be more like the following?
> > 
> > int a = 0;
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > 	a++;
> > 	return ++a;
> > 	a++;
> > }
> > 
> > Hmmm...  But this -still- doesn't emit any warnings.
> > 
> 
> gcc removed -Wunreachable-code a couple years ago.  It doesn't complain 
> when you pass it for backwards compatibility with old Makefiles.

Ah well, back to manual inspection, then.  :-/

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/