[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mt448p0e.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 22:17:21 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>
Cc: longman@...hat.com, swboyd@...omium.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
wuchi.zero@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+5093ba19745994288b53@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with
is_static_object
On Thu, Mar 23 2023 at 01:55, Schspa Shi wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>> Which requirement? The is_static_object() call takes the address of the
>> actual object and has nothing to do with the tracking object at all.
>>
>
> This is for the fellowing test case, actually we calls
> debug_object_free() from a static object in our selftest, if we don't
> report any thing when call debug_object_free from a static object, we
> there is no such issues.
That's an artifical and completely pointless test case. As I told you
before the memory subsystem will warn when it's tried to free a static
object. debug_objects_free() is invoked from the memory subsystem *free*
functions.
What is the value of another warning?
Nothing at all.
So why would we add extra code just to keep track of something
completely redundant?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists