Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:42:54 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [Bug? Report] kref problem |
| |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:53 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:41:19PM +0300, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote: > > > struct my_obj_a > > > { > > > struct kobject kobj; > > > } a; > > > > > > struct my_obj_b > > > { > > > struct kobject kobj; > > > } b; > > > > Don't statically create kobjects, it's not nice. But the real problem > > is below... > > This seems to be one of those top ten sysfs snafus. Could we take the > definitions from include/asm-generic/sections.h, and make a kobject > verification function to put in the critical generic kernel functions > that deal with kobjects, like kobject_init()?
I wish. The main offender of this is the kernel core code itself, with the decl_subsys and struct bus stuff. If you provide some nice fuctions to fix those up to be dynamic, then I would have no problem with the function you have below.
> Somthing like... > > void verify_dynamic_kobject_allocation(struct kobject *kobj) > { > if (kobj >= &_data && kobj < &_edata) > goto warn; > if (kobj >= &_bss_start && kobj < &_bss_end) > goto warn; > ... > return; > warn: > printk(KERN_WARN "statically allocated kobject, you suck...\n"); > } > > I'm not sure that all of the architectures fill in all of the values, > but we could at least support the warnings for the ones that do. That > includes at least i386, so it could be a relatively effective tool. > > I'll cook up a real patch in a bit.
That would be fun to play with, I'd appreciate it. If nothing else, I'll add it to my tree for future use.
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
| |