![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 2/26/06, Victor Porton <porton@ex-code.com> wrote: > >>Isn't it better to double check (especially after such risky things as >>e.g. software suspend)? >> >>We need to check not only for damaged hardware, but also for >>kernel/modules bugs. For this ECC and cache reliability is useless. > > > What kernel bugs do you want to catch with double-checking free > memory? For use-after-free, we already have slab poisoning. > And for !slab, we unmap kernel virtual addresses with page debugging, which seems like a better solution. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-02-26 12:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||