[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303279470.2756.17.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:04:30 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, casteyde.christian@...e.fr,
Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from
uninitialized memory in __alloc_skb
Le mercredi 20 avril 2011 à 08:56 +0300, Pekka Enberg a écrit :
> On 4/19/11 11:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mardi 19 avril 2011 à 12:10 -0500, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CMPXCHG_LOCAL
> >>> +#if defined(CONFIG_CMPXCHG_LOCAL)&& \
> >>> + !defined(CONFIG_KMEMCHECK)&& !defined(DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)
> >>> +#define SLUB_USE_CMPXCHG_DOUBLE
> >>> +#endif
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifdef SLUB_USE_CMPXCHG_DOUBLE
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >>> /*
> >> Ugg.. Isnt there some way to indicate to kmemcheck that a speculative
> >> access is occurring?
> > Yes, here is a totally untested patch (only compiled here), to keep
> > kmemcheck& cmpxchg_double together.
>
> Looks good to me! Can we get someone to test it as well?
I tested first patch, but was not able to trigger the fault anyway
without it. I'll try a bit more today if time permits...
It would be nice if Christian can reproduce the initial problem easily
and give us the steps...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists